Opinion
17893.
SUBMITTED JUNE 9, 1952.
DECIDED JULY 14, 1952.
Suit to vacate judgment. Before Judge Edmondson. Lumpkin Superior Court. February 20, 1952.
H. T. Oliver, for plaintiff in error.
Johnson Johnson, contra.
The verdict of the jury is amply supported by the evidence; and, no error of law being otherwise asserted, the judgment of the trial court denying the motion for new trial must be.
Affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P.J., not participating.
No. 17893. SUBMITTED JUNE 9, 1952 — DECIDED JULY 14, 1952.
The plaintiff in the trial court sought the cancellation of a previous verdict and judgment procured against him and his son by the defendant, and to enjoin the sale of described personal property, claimed by him, which had been levied on under the execution issued upon the judgment. He charged that the verdict and judgment against him had been procured through fraudulent acts and conduct on the part of the defendant and his attorney. There was no demurrer to the petition.
Upon the trial of the cause the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and a decree was entered vacating and setting aside the former verdict and judgment in so far as they applied to the plaintiff. The defendant's motion for new trial, containing only the usual general grounds, was overruled, and the exception is to that judgment.