Carlisle v. Ragan-Malone Co.

87 S.E. 608, 17 Ga. App. 435, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 990
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 6, 1916·No. 6637·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

The grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial numbered from 4 to 11 can not be considered, because no reason is alleged why the rulings which are complained of and set out therein are erroneous, and it is not stated what specific objections, if any, were made at the trial.

2. The charge of the court as a whole was full and fair, and, in the absence of a timely written request, it was not error to omit to charge the jury more specifically upon the contentions of the defendant. The statement that the court failed to charge that the sole issue in an action of trover is one of title is not borne out by the record.

3. There was some evidence which authorized the verdict, and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Carlisle v. Ragan-Malone Co., 87 S.E. 608, 17 Ga. App. 435, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 990 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

87 S.E. 608 (Carlisle v. Ragan-Malone Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meaders v. Jones
115 S.E.2d 607 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Equitable Credit Corp. v. Johnson
72 S.E.2d 816 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
City of Atlanta v. Sciple
92 S.E. 28 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Hope v. Hedgerose Heights Co.
90 S.E. 731 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)