Hopkins Investment Co. v. Crawford

1. Where, in a case tried by a jury in the municipal court of Atlanta, the judge directed a verdict, and the losing party made a timely oral motion for a new trial, a ground of the motion which eom*332plained that the court erred in such direction because there were issues of fact for determination by the jury, was sufficient to raise the question of whether, under the pleadings and the evidence, the particular verdict directed was demanded as a matter of law. Meeks v. Meeks, 5 Ga. App. 394 (63 S. E. 270) ; Ewing v. Bowser, 14 Ga. App. 305 (80 S. E. 693); Savannah Trust Co. v. National Bank of…