Citizens Banking Co. v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Citizens Banking Co. v. Jones

129 S.E. 910, 34 Ga. App. 427, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 290

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 6, 1925

Docket16433

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 129 S.E. 910 (Citizens Banking Co. v. Jones) 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

Citizens Banking Co. v. Jones, 129 S.E. 910, 34 Ga. App. 427, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 290 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. “A special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself, and this court will not consider a ground which complains of the admitting of specified evidence the materiality of which can not be determined without an examination of the brief of evidence or of some other part.of the record.” Mayor &c. of Gainesville v. White, 27 Ga. App. 16 (107 S. E. 571); Veal v. State, 27 Ga. App. 300 (3) (108 S. E. 243); Cœsar v. State, 22 Ga. App. 796 (1) (97 S. E. 255); Tice Co. v. Evans, 32 Ga. App. 387 (16) (123 S. E. 742); Wellborn v. State, 32 Ga. App. 55 (2) (122 S. E. 648); Veal v. Montgomery, 31 Ga. App. 20 (3) (120 S. E. 26). “Where evidence is offered [428]*428and objected to, and a portion thereof is admissible and a part objectionable, unless the illegal portion is specified and properly objected to, the whole will be admitted.” City of Atlanta v. Sciple, 19 Ga. App. 694 (3), 698 (92 S. E. 28); Luke v. State, 26 Ga. App. 175 (1), 176 (106 S. E. 199), and citations; Knight v. State, 143 Ga. 678 (6) (85 S. E. 905). In a ground of a motion for a new trial which complains of the admission of testimony it must appear how the testimony which was admitted over objection was-material, and how it could have been hurtful to the plaintiff in error. Hunter v. State, 148 Ga. 566 (2) (97 S. E. 523). Under the rulings in the foregoing eases we are not called upon to consider the assignments of error in grounds 1 and 2 of the motion for a new trial.

2. When considered in connection with the entire charge and all the testimony, there is no error in any of the excerpts from the charge, of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial, which requires a reversal of the judgment.

3. The court properly refused to give the requested charge set out in the motion for a new trial.

4. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. “A special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself, and this court will not consider a ground which complains of the admitting of specified evidence the materiality of which can not be determined without an examination of the brief of evidence or of some other part.of the record.” Mayor &c. of Gainesville v. White, 27 Ga. App. 16 (107 S. E. 571); Veal v. State, 27 Ga. App. 300 (3) (108 S. E. 243); Cœsar v. State, 22 Ga. App. 796 (1) (97 S. E. 255); Tice Co. v. Evans, 32 Ga. App. 387 (16) (123 S. E. 742); Wellborn v. State, 32 Ga. App. 55 (2) (122 S. E. 648); Veal v. Montgomery, 31 Ga. App. 20 (3) (120 S. E. 26). “Where evidence is offered [428]*428and objected to, and a portion thereof is admissible and a part objectionable, unless the illegal portion is specified and properly objected to, the whole will be admitted.” City of Atlanta v. Sciple, 19 Ga. App. 694 (3), 698 (92 S. E. 28); Luke v. State, 26 Ga. App. 175 (1), 176 (106 S. E. 199), and citations; Knight v. State, 143 Ga. 678 (6) (85 S. E. 905). In a ground of a motion for a new trial which complains of the admission of testimony it must appear how the testimony which was admitted over objection was-material, and how it could have been hurtful to the plaintiff in error. Hunter v. State, 148 Ga. 566 (2) (97 S. E. 523). Under the rulings in the foregoing eases we are not called upon to consider the assignments of error in grounds 1 and 2 of the motion for a new trial.

2. When considered in connection with the entire charge and all the testimony, there is no error in any of the excerpts from the charge, of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial, which requires a reversal of the judgment.

3. The court properly refused to give the requested charge set out in the motion for a new trial.

4. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.E. 910, 34 Ga. App. 427, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-banking-co-v-jones-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

4. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack