Carter v. Johnson

37 S.E. 736, 112 Ga. 494, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 215
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 20, 1900·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

1. Since sustaining a demurrer to an affidavit of illegality would leave nothing to be tried, it is manifest that the overruling of such a demurrer can not properly be made a ground of a motion for a new trial. See, in this connection, Willbanks v. Untriner, 98 Ga. 861; Holleman v. Bradley Co., 106 Ga. 157; Cleveland v. State, 109 Ga. 265.

2. A direct assignment of error upon a ruling made during the progress of a trial comes too late if for the first time presented in a bill of exceptions sued out more than thirty days after the adjournment of the term at which such ruling was made. Civil Code, § 5539; Dietz v. Fahy, 107 Ga. 325, and cases cited.

3. The evidence warranted a finding in favor of the prevailing party, and there was no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Carter v. Johnson, 37 S.E. 736, 112 Ga. 494, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 215 (Ga. 1900).

37 S.E. 736 (Carter v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cone v. Hunter
145 S.E. 912 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Birmingham Finance Co. v. Chisholm
134 S.E. 301 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Cohen v. Brown
134 S.E. 119 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
First National Bank v. Taylor
74 S.E. 783 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1912)
Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Co. v. Renfroe
42 S.E. 88 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
Heery v. Burkhalter
39 S.E. 406 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)