Legal Opinion

Hamilton National Bank v. Robertson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided October 11, 1933No. 9446PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

1. “Where a case has been tried by a jury and a verdict rendered therein, and the losing party desires to test the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, a motion for a new trial is indispensable.” Mackin v. Blalock, 133 Ga. 550 (4) (66 S. E. 265, 134 Am. St. R. 220). *735“The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict will not be considered by this court upon a direct bill of exceptions. The question must be made and passed upon in the court below, by a motion for new trial.” Bacon v. Jones, 117 Ga. 497 (2) (43 S. E. 689). See also Mobley v. Ellis, 37 Ga. App. 683 (141 S. E.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Gilliard v. Johnston & MillerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
  2. Beall v. Mineral Tone Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1929
  3. Mackin v. BlalockSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
  4. Hightower v. HightowerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
  5. Mobley v. EllisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Cheatham v. PalmerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
  2. Mullis v. McCookSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
  3. Fleming v. CollinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
  4. Hodges v. Seaboard Loan & Savings Ass'nSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
  5. Corr v. CorrSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API