Burkhalter v. Roach

Supreme Court of Georgia

Burkhalter v. Roach

102 S.E. 832, 150 Ga. 98, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 56

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1920

DocketNos. 1573, 1574

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 S.E. 832 (Burkhalter v. Roach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burkhalter v. Roach, 102 S.E. 832, 150 Ga. 98, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 56 (Ga. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

This is the fourth appearance of this case in the Supreme Court. Burkhalter v. Roach, 142 Ga. 344 (82 S. E. 1059); s. c. 145 6a. 834 (90 S. E. 52); s. c. 149 6a. 565 (101 S. E. 123). In the main bill of exceptions no such errors are pointed out as having been committed by the trial court as will require a reversal. The general charge of the court covered the issues made in the ease; and while there are some inaccuracies in the charge, they are not of such a nature as will cause the grant of a new trial. In so far as the requests to charge were pertinent and proper, they were covered by the main charge. Other assignments of error are without substantial merit. '

Judgment affirmed on the main bill of exception. Oross-bill dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Gilbert, J., absent for providential cause.

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

Hill, J.

This is the fourth appearance of this case in the Supreme Court. Burkhalter v. Roach, 142 Ga. 344 (82 S. E. 1059); s. c. 145 6a. 834 (90 S. E. 52); s. c. 149 6a. 565 (101 S. E. 123). In the main bill of exceptions no such errors are pointed out as having been committed by the trial court as will require a reversal. The general charge of the court covered the issues made in the ease; and while there are some inaccuracies in the charge, they are not of such a nature as will cause the grant of a new trial. In so far as the requests to charge were pertinent and proper, they were covered by the main charge. Other assignments of error are without substantial merit. '

Judgment affirmed on the main bill of exception. Oross-bill dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Gilbert, J., absent for providential cause.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E. 832, 150 Ga. 98, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkhalter-v-roach-ga-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack