Blockam v. Few

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blockam v. Few

87 S.E. 607, 17 Ga. App. 440, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 997

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 7, 1916·No. 6376·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1: Under the repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court the refusal of a trial judge to direct a verdict is never reversible error.

2. The fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, and tenth grounds of the amendment to . the motion for a new trial contain no specific assignment of error, and merely amplify the general grounds.

, 3. The eighth ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, which complains of a charge of the court, does not point out the error in the charge, and is set out in such a vague and confused manner as to present no question for determination.

4. There was some evidence to authorize the verdict, and it has been approved by the trial judge. Judgment aprmed.

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

Broyles, J.

1: Under the repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court the refusal of a trial judge to direct a verdict is never reversible error.

2. The fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, and tenth grounds of the amendment to . the motion for a new trial contain no specific assignment of error, and merely amplify the general grounds.

, 3. The eighth ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, which complains of a charge of the court, does not point out the error in the charge, and is set out in such a vague and confused manner as to present no question for determination.

4. There was some evidence to authorize the verdict, and it has been approved by the trial judge. Judgment aprmed.

Blockam v. Few, 87 S.E. 607, 17 Ga. App. 440, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 997 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

87 S.E. 607 (Blockam v. Few) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related