Dimond v. Shackelford

Bloodwortii, J.

1. The court did not err in any of the rulings relating to the pleadings, of which error is alleged in the exceptions pendente lite.

*138Decided June 9, 1925. Rehearing denied July 14, 1925. W. I. & P. Z. Geer, for plaintiff in error. J. Q. Hale, contra.

2. None of fclie special grounds of the motion for a new trial shows any reason why. the judgment of the trial court should be reversed.

3'. A verdict for the full amount sued for was properly directed.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.