Judges: PER CURIAM.
Attorneys: Hampton, Bull Crom, for Plaintiff in Error;
Cook Harris J. Uhle Bethell, for Defendants in Error;
Filed: Oct. 09, 1935
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Plaintiff in error states that there are two questions presented in this case. From a perusal of the record, we conceive that there is only one question presented and that is, whether or not there was any evidence which would support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. This is true because the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. A careful perusal of the bill of exceptions, which we have considered although its propriety in the record is seriously questioned, shows that there was
Summary: Plaintiff in error states that there are two questions presented in this case. From a perusal of the record, we conceive that there is only one question presented and that is, whether or not there was any evidence which would support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. This is true because the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. A careful perusal of the bill of exceptions, which we have considered although its propriety in the record is seriously questioned, shows that there was ..
More
Plaintiff in error states that there are two questions presented in this case. From a perusal of the record, we conceive that there is only one question presented and that is, whether or not there was any evidence which would support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. This is true because the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant.
A careful perusal of the bill of exceptions, which we have considered although its propriety in the record is seriously questioned, shows that there was evidence to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and, therefore, the judgment should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
WHITFIELD, C.J., and TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, and DAVIS, J.J., concur.
