Bonner v. Bonner

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bonner v. Bonner

107 S.E. 376, 27 Ga. App. 26, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 655

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 11, 1921

Docket12226

StatusPublished

This text of 107 S.E. 376 (Bonner v. Bonner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonner v. Bonner, 107 S.E. 376, 27 Ga. App. 26, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 655 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) 1. Under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a [27]*27special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself; and a ground complaining of the admission of evidence must- show that the evidence was admitted over the objection of the movant and that the objection was made to the court at the time the evidence was offered; and the ground must further show what was the objection. Under this ruling the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial cannot be considered.

2. Under all the facts of the case, none of the remaining grounds of the motion for a new trial shows material error.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) 1. Under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a [27]*27special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself; and a ground complaining of the admission of evidence must- show that the evidence was admitted over the objection of the movant and that the objection was made to the court at the time the evidence was offered; and the ground must further show what was the objection. Under this ruling the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial cannot be considered.

2. Under all the facts of the case, none of the remaining grounds of the motion for a new trial shows material error.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 376, 27 Ga. App. 26, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonner-v-bonner-gactapp-1921.