Elmgren v. Murrin

105 S.E. 709, 26 Ga. App. 250, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 89
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 28, 1921
Docket11674
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 S.E. 709 (Elmgren v. Murrin) 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
Elmgren v. Murrin, 105 S.E. 709, 26 Ga. App. 250, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 89 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The right to open and conclude the argument to a jury is an important legal right, and if it" be improperly denied, its denial demands the grant of a new trial. In order for the defendant to obtain this legal right where a prima facie case for the plaintiff is admitted, it must be shown that the right was claimed before the testimony upon both sides had closed. See Jones v. Fourth National Bank, 20 Ga. App. 219 (1) (92 S. E. 964), and cases cited. In this case it was not [251]*251error to deny to the defendant the right to open and conclude the argument to the jury.

Decided January 28, 1921. Trover; from city court of Savannah — Judge Rourke. May 22, 1920. Robert L. Golding, H. Mercer Jordan, for plaintiff in error. Bouhan & Herzog, contra.

2 . There is no error of law that requires a reversal of the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Related

Phillips v. Smith
47 S.E.2d 156 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 S.E. 709, 26 Ga. App. 250, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elmgren-v-murrin-gactapp-1921.