Carlisle v. Tidwell
Supreme Court of Georgia
Debt, in Eayette Superior Court. Motion for a new trial. Decided by Judge Irwin, at Chambers, 9th March, 1854. This was an action of debt, brought by William W. Carlisle, against Mial M. Tidwell, as' administrator on the estate of ’ Josiah C. Berry, deceased, on the following note: $581t%V Twelve months after date, I promise to pay William WCarlisle, or bearer, Five Hundred and Eighty-one -^¶ dollars, to bear interest from the 25th day of December last, for value received.
Read the full summary
Debt, in Eayette Superior Court. Motion for a new trial. Decided by Judge Irwin, at Chambers, 9th March, 1854. This was an action of debt, brought by William W. Carlisle, against Mial M. Tidwell, as' administrator on the estate of ’ Josiah C. Berry, deceased, on the following note: $581t%V Twelve months after date, I promise to pay William WCarlisle, or bearer, Five Hundred and Eighty-one -^¶ dollars, to bear interest from the 25th day of December last, for value received. Witness my hand and seal, this 10th April, 1841. JOSIAH C. BERRY, [l. s.] The action was commenced in 1849. The defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Benning, J.
delivering the opinion.
The new trial was moved for on three grounds. 1. That the verdict was contrary to evidence. 2d. Contrary to Law. 3d. That the plaintiff had discovered new evidence since the trial.
There is plainly no foundation for the first and second grounds.
[1.] As to the third, the plaintiff’s affidavit does not support it — does not say that the evidence which he wishes to use, has been discovered since the trial. What the affidavit says is, that he, the plaintiff, was not “ apprized of the existence and materiality” of that evidence, until after the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Adams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
- Wright v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1864