Futrelle v. Karsman
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The verdict was demanded by the evidence; and therefore it is not necessary to deal with the alleged errors in the charge of the court, or with the alleged improper remark of the court, during the progress of the trial, and while a witness for the plaintiff was on the stand. The
*768proof, in so far as the allegation of the petition that Mr. Karsman and Mrs. Karsman were operating a business as partners under the trade-name of “S. Karsman” is concerned, wholly fails to show that Mrs. Karsman had any connection with or interest in the business, other than that…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Ponder v. BarrettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- Heaton v. Fulton National BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- Hurst v. Federal Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Karsman v. FutrelleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
- Union Relief Ass'n v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933