
    Searcy et al. v. Collins et al.
    
    1. An exception to a decree that it does not follow the verdict, no particular departure being specified, does not raise the question whether the decree goes beyond the verdict, although it may do so in one particular.
    2. The evidence, though conflicting, warranted the verdict as to all the answers specifically propounded to the jury; and no answer given was defective, either by reason of not being responsive to the question or by reason of not being sufficiently comprehensive to answer it.
    July 23, 1894.
    Equitable petition. Before Judge Smith. Bibb superior court. November term, 1893.
    M. G. Bayne, for plaintiffs.
    Ryals & Stone, for defendants.
   Judgment affirmed.  