Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

240 Ga. 483

241 S.E.2d 241

Lee v. Newman

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 5, 1978

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1978-01-05

Relies on Adler v. Adler · Williams v. Kennedy · Titshaw v. Carnes

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-01-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2008

8 state decisions

301978198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bowles, Justice.

¶1 This appeal is from a judgment denying a motion for new trial and denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the general grounds.

¶2 The plaintiff-appellee, Chester R. Lee, sought to quiet title to property located in Haralson County, Georgia, and to have the title to same declared vested in him. Ruthie M. Lee, widow of Hugh M. Lee, and as his sole heir at law, answered and claimed title to the same parcel of land.

¶3 The case was tried before a jury, which found in favor of plaintiff-appellee. On appeal, Roy N. Newman was substituted as the executor of the estate of Chester R. Lee. Because the appeal is from a judgment denying the motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on general grounds, the sole issue for determination by this court is whether there is any evidence sufficient to authorize the verdict. Adler v. Adler, 207 Ga. 394, 405 (61 SE2d 824) (1950); Titshaw v. Carnes, 226 Ga. 430 (175 SE2d 541) (1970); Williams v. *484 Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163 (4) (1977).

Submitted November 4, 1977 Decided January 5, 1978. Murphy, Witcher & Murphy, Jack F. Witcher, for appellant. Roy N. Newman, for appellee.

¶4 We have read the entire record and transcript and find evidence which would authorize the jury to find title to be in the plaintiff-appellee. The trial court did not err in overruling the motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

¶5 Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
/240/ga/483 · .json · Public domain