Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Everett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Everett

106 S.E. 798, 26 Ga. App. 584, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 534

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 13, 1921

Docket11691

StatusPublished

This text of 106 S.E. 798 (Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Everett) 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

Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Everett, 106 S.E. 798, 26 Ga. App. 584, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 534 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. In Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Everett, 24 Ga. App. 738 (102 S. E. 167), this court held that the petition in this case set out a cause of action. The evidence submitted at the trial supports the allegations of the petition and the verdict has the approval of the judge who tried the case.

2. Some of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial failed to conform to the rule laid down by the Supreme Court, that “ This court cannot review an instruction alleged to be erroneous, when the exception thereto does not set forth, literally or in substance, the language complained of, so as to convey a clear understanding of such instruction.” Williams v. State, 145 Ga. 177 (88 S. E. 958). See also Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Phillips, 117 Ga. 98(2) (43 S. E. 494); Smith v. Owen, 112 Ga. 531(1) (37 S. E. 729) ; St. John v. Leyden, 111 Ga. 152(4) (36 S. E. 610); Southern Railway Co. v. Dantzler, 99 Ga. 323(2) (25 S. E. 606). Other of the special grounds are not referred to in the brief of plaintiff in error, and must be treated as abandoned. Crawford v. State, 149 Ga. 485(4) (100 S. E. 633) ; Starling v. State, 24 Ga. App. 422(3) (100 S. E. 771). In the condition of the record and of the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, this court cannot say that the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment afjvrmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. In Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Everett, 24 Ga. App. 738 (102 S. E. 167), this court held that the petition in this case set out a cause of action. The evidence submitted at the trial supports the allegations of the petition and the verdict has the approval of the judge who tried the case.

2. Some of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial failed to conform to the rule laid down by the Supreme Court, that “ This court cannot review an instruction alleged to be erroneous, when the exception thereto does not set forth, literally or in substance, the language complained of, so as to convey a clear understanding of such instruction.” Williams v. State, 145 Ga. 177 (88 S. E. 958). See also Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Phillips, 117 Ga. 98(2) (43 S. E. 494); Smith v. Owen, 112 Ga. 531(1) (37 S. E. 729) ; St. John v. Leyden, 111 Ga. 152(4) (36 S. E. 610); Southern Railway Co. v. Dantzler, 99 Ga. 323(2) (25 S. E. 606). Other of the special grounds are not referred to in the brief of plaintiff in error, and must be treated as abandoned. Crawford v. State, 149 Ga. 485(4) (100 S. E. 633) ; Starling v. State, 24 Ga. App. 422(3) (100 S. E. 771). In the condition of the record and of the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, this court cannot say that the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment afjvrmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E. 798, 26 Ga. App. 584, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckeye-cotton-oil-co-v-everett-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack