Colquitt Lumber Co. v. Hodges

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Colquitt Lumber Co. v. Hodges

95 S.E. 998, 22 Ga. App. 373, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 344

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 16, 1918

Docket9338

StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 998 (Colquitt Lumber Co. v. Hodges) 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

Colquitt Lumber Co. v. Hodges, 95 S.E. 998, 22 Ga. App. 373, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 344 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwobth, J.

1. The 4th and 5th grounds of the motion for a new trial are merely amplifications of the general grounds. The 6th and 7th grounds are too general, indefinite and vague for consideration by a reviewing court.

2. When considered in connection with the evidence, and in the light, of the entire charge, the excerpts quoted in, the 8th and 9th grounds of the motion are not erroneous.

3. The court did not err in “submitting to the jury the question of inspection.”

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment ■affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur. Shipp & Kline, for plaintiff in error. J. Frank Norman, Eartsfield & Co.nger, contra.

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