Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Mansfield Trading Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Mansfield Trading Co.

103 S.E. 804, 25 Ga. App. 438, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 863

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1920

Docket11054

StatusPublished

This text of 103 S.E. 804 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Mansfield Trading Co.) 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

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Mansfield Trading Co., 103 S.E. 804, 25 Ga. App. 438, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 863 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Several of the exceptions to interlocutory rulings in this case were not preserved by exceptions pendente lite, and therefore can not be considered. Likewise, numerous grounds of the motion for a new trial are not specifically argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and must therefore be treated as abandoned. The assignment of error upon the court’s refusal to grant a nonsuit will not be considered, since the case proceeded to judgment and the motion for a new trial contained the ground that the verdict was not authorized by the evidence.

After a thorough examination of the voluminous record, and a careful consideration of all the assignments of error that are properly before this court, we find none that requires a new trial. The evidence authorized the verdict; the charge of the court was full and fair; and for no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Several of the exceptions to interlocutory rulings in this case were not preserved by exceptions pendente lite, and therefore can not be considered. Likewise, numerous grounds of the motion for a new trial are not specifically argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and must therefore be treated as abandoned. The assignment of error upon the court’s refusal to grant a nonsuit will not be considered, since the case proceeded to judgment and the motion for a new trial contained the ground that the verdict was not authorized by the evidence.

After a thorough examination of the voluminous record, and a careful consideration of all the assignments of error that are properly before this court, we find none that requires a new trial. The evidence authorized the verdict; the charge of the court was full and fair; and for no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 804, 25 Ga. App. 438, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-mansfield-trading-co-gactapp-1920.