Brooks v. Ritch

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brooks v. Ritch

121 S.E. 136, 31 Ga. App. 539, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 32

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 16, 1924

Docket14975

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 121 S.E. 136 (Brooks v. Ritch) 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

Brooks v. Ritch, 121 S.E. 136, 31 Ga. App. 539, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 32 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwoeth, J.

1. The 4th ground of the motion for a new trial states that certain evidence set out therein “was repeatedly objected to on the part of counsel for Mrs. M. J. Brooks, and the court finally disposed of same by stating that he would reserve his ruling. Counsel submits that the court should have sustained his objections, as the evidence was irrelevant and immaterial and was not the proper manner and way to prove agency.” This ground is disposed of by the ruling in Cawthon v. State, 119 Ga. 395 (46 S. E. 897), that “Where the court, over objection, admits certain evidence, with the statement that the objection will be passed upon at a later stage of the trial, it is incumbent upon the objecting party, if the evidence be inadmissible, to direct the court’s attention thereto either before or at the close of the testimony, and to move to exclude it; and upon his failure to do this he will be held to have waived his objection.”

2. There is sufficient evidence to support those portions of the charge of the court which are complained of as not being authorized by the evidence.

3. This court cannot say that there is no evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodwoeth, J.

1. The 4th ground of the motion for a new trial states that certain evidence set out therein “was repeatedly objected to on the part of counsel for Mrs. M. J. Brooks, and the court finally disposed of same by stating that he would reserve his ruling. Counsel submits that the court should have sustained his objections, as the evidence was irrelevant and immaterial and was not the proper manner and way to prove agency.” This ground is disposed of by the ruling in Cawthon v. State, 119 Ga. 395 (46 S. E. 897), that “Where the court, over objection, admits certain evidence, with the statement that the objection will be passed upon at a later stage of the trial, it is incumbent upon the objecting party, if the evidence be inadmissible, to direct the court’s attention thereto either before or at the close of the testimony, and to move to exclude it; and upon his failure to do this he will be held to have waived his objection.”

2. There is sufficient evidence to support those portions of the charge of the court which are complained of as not being authorized by the evidence.

3. This court cannot say that there is no evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 136, 31 Ga. App. 539, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-ritch-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack