Columbus Railroad v. Asbell

Supreme Court of Georgia

Columbus Railroad v. Asbell

70 S.E. 1016, 136 Ga. 166, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 462

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Columbus Railroad v. Asbell. Read the opinion of the Court — 133 Ga. 573 →

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided April 13, 1911·Published

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. The requests to charge, which were refused, in so far as they announced correct principles of law, were sufficiently covered by the general charge.

2. The excerpts from the charge, of which complaint was made, when considered in the light of the general charge, present no ground for reversal.

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. The requests to charge, which were refused, in so far as they announced correct principles of law, were sufficiently covered by the general charge.

2. The excerpts from the charge, of which complaint was made, when considered in the light of the general charge, present no ground for reversal.

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Columbus Railroad v. Asbell, 70 S.E. 1016, 136 Ga. 166, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 462 (Ga. 1911).

Pincite

70 S.E. 1016 (Columbus Railroad v. Asbell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.