Dodge v. Royal Mining & Milling Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dodge v. Royal Mining & Milling Co.

98 S.E. 104, 23 Ga. App. 199, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 41

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 14, 1919

Docket9837

StatusPublished

This text of 98 S.E. 104 (Dodge v. Royal Mining & Milling Co.) 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

Dodge v. Royal Mining & Milling Co., 98 S.E. 104, 23 Ga. App. 199, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 41 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The grounds of the motion for a new trial which have the approval of the trial judge do not show material error in the admission [200]*200of testimony. -The charge of the court is subject to some slight criticism, because of inapt expressions, but upon the whole was full and submitted the issues to the jury, and could not have misled them in such a way as to work injury to the plaintiff. The evidence, though conflicting, authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial jud'ge. ■ There is no error or harm shown to the plaintiff by reason of the ruling,s upon the demurrers to the answer of the defendant. Eor none Of the reasons assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Decided January 14, 1919.

Complaint; from I-Iaralson superior court—Judge Bartlett. April 15, 1918.

Griffith & Matthews, Hutchens & McBride, for plaintiff. Price Edwards, Lloyd Thomas, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The grounds of the motion for a new trial which have the approval of the trial judge do not show material error in the admission [200]*200of testimony. -The charge of the court is subject to some slight criticism, because of inapt expressions, but upon the whole was full and submitted the issues to the jury, and could not have misled them in such a way as to work injury to the plaintiff. The evidence, though conflicting, authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial jud'ge. ■ There is no error or harm shown to the plaintiff by reason of the ruling,s upon the demurrers to the answer of the defendant. Eor none Of the reasons assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Decided January 14, 1919.

Complaint; from I-Iaralson superior court—Judge Bartlett. April 15, 1918.

Griffith & Matthews, Hutchens & McBride, for plaintiff. Price Edwards, Lloyd Thomas, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E. 104, 23 Ga. App. 199, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodge-v-royal-mining-milling-co-gactapp-1919.