Bryan Land & Timber Co. v. Southern Fertilizer & Chemical Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bryan Land & Timber Co. v. Southern Fertilizer & Chemical Co.

108 S.E. 621, 27 Ga. App. 440, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 951

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 7, 1921

Docket12152

StatusPublished

This text of 108 S.E. 621 (Bryan Land & Timber Co. v. Southern Fertilizer & Chemical Co.) 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

Bryan Land & Timber Co. v. Southern Fertilizer & Chemical Co., 108 S.E. 621, 27 Ga. App. 440, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 951 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The charge of the court has been carefully read and considered, and the writer of this opinion expresses the view, without reservation, that in his experience he has never considered a charge that more completely, fully, and correctly set out and more clearly and distinctly covered all the rules of law applicable to the evidence in the case than that delivered by the learned judge in the present instance. Many objections to excerpts from the charge are made in the motion for a new trial, but a careful examination of these exceptions, when they are considered in connection with the entire charge, shows beyond doubt not only that they are entirely without merit, but that the charge as a whole fully conformed to the law claimed to be applicable to the facts by the plaintiff in error. It would answer no profitable purpose to take up and discuss each of these exceptions. We therefore conclude that no error of law was committed; the evidence was in conflict on the issues of fact involved, and this court is without jurisdiction to set aside the verdict, which is approved by the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Hill, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The charge of the court has been carefully read and considered, and the writer of this opinion expresses the view, without reservation, that in his experience he has never considered a charge that more completely, fully, and correctly set out and more clearly and distinctly covered all the rules of law applicable to the evidence in the case than that delivered by the learned judge in the present instance. Many objections to excerpts from the charge are made in the motion for a new trial, but a careful examination of these exceptions, when they are considered in connection with the entire charge, shows beyond doubt not only that they are entirely without merit, but that the charge as a whole fully conformed to the law claimed to be applicable to the facts by the plaintiff in error. It would answer no profitable purpose to take up and discuss each of these exceptions. We therefore conclude that no error of law was committed; the evidence was in conflict on the issues of fact involved, and this court is without jurisdiction to set aside the verdict, which is approved by the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 621, 27 Ga. App. 440, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryan-land-timber-co-v-southern-fertilizer-chemical-co-gactapp-1921.