Chance v. Alderman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Chance v. Alderman

118 S.E. 579, 30 Ga. App. 614, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 557

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 10, 1923

Docket14599

StatusPublished

This text of 118 S.E. 579 (Chance v. Alderman) 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

Chance v. Alderman, 118 S.E. 579, 30 Ga. App. 614, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 557 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. “ In order for the exclusion of oral testimony to be considered as a ground for a new trial, it must appear that a pertinent question was asked, and that the court ruled out the answer; and that a statement was made to the court at the time, showing what the answer would be; and that such testimony was material, and would have benefited the complaining party.” Griffin v. Henderson, 117 Ga. 382 (2) (43 S. E. 712). Under this ruling the 1st special ground of the motion for a new trial presents nothing for consideration by this court.

2. The testimony adduced upon the trial was conflicting, and the jury, as they had the fight to do, adopted the evidence of the plaintiff and returned a verdict in her favor, which has the approval of the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., oonour.

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

Luke, J.

1. “ In order for the exclusion of oral testimony to be considered as a ground for a new trial, it must appear that a pertinent question was asked, and that the court ruled out the answer; and that a statement was made to the court at the time, showing what the answer would be; and that such testimony was material, and would have benefited the complaining party.” Griffin v. Henderson, 117 Ga. 382 (2) (43 S. E. 712). Under this ruling the 1st special ground of the motion for a new trial presents nothing for consideration by this court.

2. The testimony adduced upon the trial was conflicting, and the jury, as they had the fight to do, adopted the evidence of the plaintiff and returned a verdict in her favor, which has the approval of the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., oonour.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.E. 579, 30 Ga. App. 614, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chance-v-alderman-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack