Bourquin v. Bourquin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bourquin v. Bourquin

125 S.E. 776, 33 Ga. App. 175, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 806

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 9, 1924

Docket15973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 S.E. 776 (Bourquin v. Bourquin) 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

Bourquin v. Bourquin, 125 S.E. 776, 33 Ga. App. 175, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 806 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The defendant in a case can not complain that certain abstract principles of law pertinent to his contentions were not charged, where no written request therefor was made, and where the charge of the court made clear the specific application of such abstract principles of law by enumerating all the material contentions of the defendant, and in substance instructed the jury that they should find for the defendant if any of his contentions were proved to their satisfaction. Crankshaw v. Schweizer Mfg. Co., 1 Ga. App. 363 (11) (58 S. E. 222). Under the above-stated ruling and the facts of the instant case, the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are without merit.

2. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial, not being referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodwortli, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The defendant in a case can not complain that certain abstract principles of law pertinent to his contentions were not charged, where no written request therefor was made, and where the charge of the court made clear the specific application of such abstract principles of law by enumerating all the material contentions of the defendant, and in substance instructed the jury that they should find for the defendant if any of his contentions were proved to their satisfaction. Crankshaw v. Schweizer Mfg. Co., 1 Ga. App. 363 (11) (58 S. E. 222). Under the above-stated ruling and the facts of the instant case, the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are without merit.

2. The general grounds of the motion for a new trial, not being referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodwortli, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E. 776, 33 Ga. App. 175, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bourquin-v-bourquin-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack