City of Atlanta v. Hendricks

Court of Appeals of Georgia

City of Atlanta v. Hendricks

96 S.E. 10, 22 Ga. App. 400, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 361

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1918

Docket9241

StatusPublished

This text of 96 S.E. 10 (City of Atlanta v. Hendricks) 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

City of Atlanta v. Hendricks, 96 S.E. 10, 22 Ga. App. 400, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 361 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, <L

1. When a petition is good as against a general demurrer, an oral motion, made at time of trial, to dismiss the action because the allegations of negligence are too general, will not take the place of a timely special demurrer. The’court did not"err in overruling the oral motion to dismiss the case.

[401]*401Decided May 17, 1918.

Action for damages; from city court of Atlanta—Judge Eeid. September 8, 1917.

J. L. Mayson, -S. D. Hewlett, for plaintiff in error. Colquitt & Conyers, contra.

2. Exception to a refusal to grant a nonsuit will not-be considered by this court, where the cause proceeded to verdict, and where further exception is taken to the overruling of a motion for a new trial in which error is assigned on the insufficiency of the evidence to support verdict. The question thus raised is merged into the motion for a new trial and becomes a part of the general grounds of the motion.

3. The court fairly and fully submitted to the jury the contentions and issues raised by the pleadings; and the evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. It was not error, for any reason assigned, to overrule the motion for a new trial.

■Judgment affirmed.

Wade, G. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

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