Burkhart v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Burkhart v. Brown

114 S.E. 922, 29 Ga. App. 263, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 224

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1922

Docket13785

StatusPublished

This text of 114 S.E. 922 (Burkhart v. Brown) 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

Burkhart v. Brown, 114 S.E. 922, 29 Ga. App. 263, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 224 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The evidence authorized a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the admission of certain evidence upon the trial, are without merit. The charge of the court, when read in its, entirety, fairly submitted the issues to the jury and is not subject to the criticism urged against it. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. Griffith & Matthews, for plaintiff in error. I. N. Cheney, contra.

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

Luke, J.

The evidence authorized a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the admission of certain evidence upon the trial, are without merit. The charge of the court, when read in its, entirety, fairly submitted the issues to the jury and is not subject to the criticism urged against it. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. Griffith & Matthews, for plaintiff in error. I. N. Cheney, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.E. 922, 29 Ga. App. 263, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkhart-v-brown-gactapp-1922.