Clark v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Clark v. Taylor

171 S.E. 308, 47 Ga. App. 692, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 604

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 6, 1933

Docket23138

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 S.E. 308 (Clark v. Taylor) 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

Clark v. Taylor, 171 S.E. 308, 47 Ga. App. 692, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 604 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “An assignment of error complaining that the court erred in directing a verdict is insufficiently specific to present to this court the question whether the court erred in directing a verdict, unless it is alleged that the court erred in directing the verdict because there were issues of fact which should have been submitted to a jury and evidence introduced which would have authorized a jury to find a different verdict from that directed by the court.” Bosworth v. Nelson, 172 Ga. 612 (158 S. E. 306) ; Sheftall v. Johnson, 171 Ga. 890 (2) (157 S. E. 94), and cit. In the instant case the sole assignment of error in the amendment to the motion for a new trial is as follows: “Because at the trial of said case, upon the completion of the evidence by both parties, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, to which direction of the verdict movant then and there excepted, now excepts, and assigns the same as error.” Under the foregoing ruling the assignment of error is not sufficiently specific to present to this court the question whether the court erred in directing the verdict; and the only question presented is whether the verdict directed was authorized by the evidence.

2. The verdict directed was authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. “An assignment of error complaining that the court erred in directing a verdict is insufficiently specific to present to this court the question whether the court erred in directing a verdict, unless it is alleged that the court erred in directing the verdict because there were issues of fact which should have been submitted to a jury and evidence introduced which would have authorized a jury to find a different verdict from that directed by the court.” Bosworth v. Nelson, 172 Ga. 612 (158 S. E. 306) ; Sheftall v. Johnson, 171 Ga. 890 (2) (157 S. E. 94), and cit. In the instant case the sole assignment of error in the amendment to the motion for a new trial is as follows: “Because at the trial of said case, upon the completion of the evidence by both parties, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, to which direction of the verdict movant then and there excepted, now excepts, and assigns the same as error.” Under the foregoing ruling the assignment of error is not sufficiently specific to present to this court the question whether the court erred in directing the verdict; and the only question presented is whether the verdict directed was authorized by the evidence.

2. The verdict directed was authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 S.E. 308, 47 Ga. App. 692, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-taylor-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack