Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/City of Rome v. McWilliams

City of Rome v. McWilliams

88 S.E. 931, 145 Ga. 191, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 234
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided May 11, 1916·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Evans, P. J.

1. The nature of the ease fully appears from previous reports of it in 138 Ga. 581 (75 S. E. 645), and 142 Ga. 848 (83 S. E. 945). The evidence authorized the verdict.

2. It is a well-established rule of practice that a ground of a motion for new trial based upon the admission of evidence should state the objection made to the evidence, and that such objection was urged at the time the objection was made; otherwise no question is raised for determination. Hill v. Chastain, 138 Ga. 750 (75 S. E. 1130) ; Dunn v. Evans, 139 Ga. 741 (3), 742 ( 78 S. E. 122); Chambers v. State, 141 Ga. 652 (81 S. E. 880); G. & F. Ry. Co. v. Stapleton, 143 Ga. 46 (84 S. E. 120).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Action for damages. Before Judge Wright. Floyd superior court. March 25, 1915. Max Meyerhardt, for plaintiff in error. Sharp & Sharp and W. M. Henry, contra.

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

City of Rome v. McWilliams, 88 S.E. 931, 145 Ga. 191, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 234 (Ga. 1916).

88 S.E. 931 (City of Rome v. McWilliams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Milliken v. State
130 S.E. 347 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Manning v. State
127 S.E. 475 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Boatright v. State
116 S.E. 557 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Cathey v. State
112 S.E. 915 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Byrd v. State
110 S.E. 758 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Martin v. State
107 S.E. 174 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Jenkins v. Jenkins
102 S.E. 425 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)
Scarboro v. State
99 S.E. 637 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Brown v. Caraker
94 S.E. 759 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)