Veal v. Huffman ( 1925 )

Blood worth, J.

1. The court did not err in any of its rulings on the pleadings on which error was assigned in the exceptions pendente lite.

2. In no ground of the motion for a new trial is there any error that requires another hearing of the case.

Decided December 15, 1925. Paul H. Boyal, for plaintiff in error. F. W. Copeland, Porter & Mebane, contra.

3. The verdict is not lacking in evidence to support it.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., conew.'