City of Hapeville v. Woodall

Supreme Court of Georgia

City of Hapeville v. Woodall

140 S.E. 858, 165 Ga. 333, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 389

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 14, 1927

DocketNo. 6200

StatusPublished

This text of 140 S.E. 858 (City of Hapeville v. Woodall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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 Hapeville v. Woodall, 140 S.E. 858, 165 Ga. 333, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 389 (Ga. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The City of Hapeville sought to enjoin Harrison & Woodall, a partnership, from laying sidewalks on designated streets. The defendants filed an answer in which they prayed for damages against the city. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants for the sum of $1846.25, for which judgment was accordingly entered. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the general grounds, subsequently amending by assigning- error as follows: “Movant contends and alleges that the court erred, during the progress of said trial, in giving the following charge to the jury: ‘The defendants, gentlemen, say that it was necessary to purchase certain wheelbarrows — I am now speaking of the damages they suffered; and you will find this itemized, in their amendment. They say that it was necessary for them to purchase certain shovels, wheelbarrows, et cetera, which they did at an expense of $69. They say that because of this injunction this property was a total loss/ ” The criticism is that the charge was an expression of opinion as to the evidence. The motion was overruled, and the plaintiff excepted.

Elaboration of the headnote is unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Gilbert, J.

The City of Hapeville sought to enjoin Harrison & Woodall, a partnership, from laying sidewalks on designated streets. The defendants filed an answer in which they prayed for damages against the city. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants for the sum of $1846.25, for which judgment was accordingly entered. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the general grounds, subsequently amending by assigning- error as follows: “Movant contends and alleges that the court erred, during the progress of said trial, in giving the following charge to the jury: ‘The defendants, gentlemen, say that it was necessary to purchase certain wheelbarrows — I am now speaking of the damages they suffered; and you will find this itemized, in their amendment. They say that it was necessary for them to purchase certain shovels, wheelbarrows, et cetera, which they did at an expense of $69. They say that because of this injunction this property was a total loss/ ” The criticism is that the charge was an expression of opinion as to the evidence. The motion was overruled, and the plaintiff excepted.

Elaboration of the headnote is unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 858, 165 Ga. 333, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-hapeville-v-woodall-ga-1927.