Chattanooga, Rome & Southern Railroad v. Swafford

Supreme Court of Georgia

Chattanooga, Rome & Southern Railroad v. Swafford

38 S.E. 826, 113 Ga. 363, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 264

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided April 27, 1901·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Little, J.

Inasmuch as the charge excepted to in the 8th ground of the motion for a new trial was in violation of section 4834 of the Civil Code, which forbids a judge to express or intimate “ his opinion as to what has or has not been proved,” and declares that “ such violation shall be held by the Supreme Court to be error, and the decision in such case reversed, and a new trial granted in the court below,” a new trial is ordered. See West End Street Ry. Co. v. Mozely, 79 Ga. 463 ; Covington v. W. & A. R. Co., 81 Ga. 273; Georgia R. Co. v. Clary, 103 Ga. 639.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring. J. D. Taylor and A. 0. King, for plaintiff in error. W. H. Ennis and Nat Harris, contra.

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

Little, J.

Inasmuch as the charge excepted to in the 8th ground of the motion for a new trial was in violation of section 4834 of the Civil Code, which forbids a judge to express or intimate “ his opinion as to what has or has not been proved,” and declares that “ such violation shall be held by the Supreme Court to be error, and the decision in such case reversed, and a new trial granted in the court below,” a new trial is ordered. See West End Street Ry. Co. v. Mozely, 79 Ga. 463 ; Covington v. W. & A. R. Co., 81 Ga. 273; Georgia R. Co. v. Clary, 103 Ga. 639.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring. J. D. Taylor and A. 0. King, for plaintiff in error. W. H. Ennis and Nat Harris, contra.

Chattanooga, Rome & Southern Railroad v. Swafford, 38 S.E. 826, 113 Ga. 363, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 264 (Ga. 1901).

Pincite

38 S.E. 826 (Chattanooga, Rome & Southern Railroad v. Swafford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related