
    Young v. Ewing et al., and vice versa.
    
   Lumpkin* J.

1. The evidence did not demand a verdict in favor of the party in whose favor it was found, and the first grant of a new trial will not be reversed. Cox v. Grady, 132 Ga. 368 (64 S. E. 262).

2. As the grant of a new trial is affirmed, the cross-bill of exceptions is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the defendant in error in regard to a future determination of his exceptions pendente lite. Armour & Co. v. Burkhalter, 130 Ga. 370 (60 S. E. 850); Purser v. Thompson, 135 Ga. 732 (70 S. E. 569).

April 13, 1911.

Complaint. Before Judge Whipple. Irwin superior court. June 22, 1910.

A. J. McDonald, E. J. Quincey, and Eaygood & Gutts, for plaintiff. L. Kennedy and OÍis E. Elkins, for defendants.

Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed. Gross-bill of exceptions dismissed, icithout prejudice.

All the Jttstices concur.  