Baynes v. Allison

Supreme Court of Georgia

Baynes v. Allison

33 S.E. 682, 108 Ga. 782, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 405

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 7, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 S.E. 682 (Baynes v. Allison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baynes v. Allison, 33 S.E. 682, 108 Ga. 782, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 405 (Ga. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

.Fish, J.

1. This court can not consider whether there was error in excluding evidence, or in striking a plea, when it does not appear either in the motion for a new trial or in the bill of exceptions what such evidence or plea was.

2. A ground of a motion for a new trial which simply complains that “the court erred in narrowing and restricting the issue in this case to the one proposition, as to whether a contract had been made between plaintiff and defendant as to erecting and placing of these repairs and improvements and the price to be paid for same,” is too general and indefinite an assignment of error to be considered.

3. The evidence was amply sufficient to warrant the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI