Judges: PER CURIAM.
Attorneys: Evan Evans, for Plaintiff in Error;
Marks, Marks, Holt, Gray Yates., for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Feb. 09, 1940
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The sole question presented by the plaintiff in error is the inadequacy of the amount awarded him by the jury. The testimony is in sharp conflict. After a study of it we have the view that the jury were well within their province in reaching the finding and that no error clearly appears. Affirmed. TERRELL, C. J., and BUFORD and THOMAS, J. J., concur. *Page 714 WHITFIELD, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment. Justices BROWN and CHAPMAN not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled G
Summary: The sole question presented by the plaintiff in error is the inadequacy of the amount awarded him by the jury. The testimony is in sharp conflict. After a study of it we have the view that the jury were well within their province in reaching the finding and that no error clearly appears. Affirmed. TERRELL, C. J., and BUFORD and THOMAS, J. J., concur. *Page 714 WHITFIELD, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment. Justices BROWN and CHAPMAN not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled Ge..
More
The sole question presented by the plaintiff in error is the inadequacy of the amount awarded him by the jury.
The testimony is in sharp conflict. After a study of it we have the view that the jury were well within their province in reaching the finding and that no error clearly appears.
Affirmed.
TERRELL, C. J., and BUFORD and THOMAS, J. J., concur.
WHITFIELD, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices BROWN and CHAPMAN not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
