Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Georgia & Florida Railway Co. v. Stapleton

Georgia & Florida Railway Co. v. Stapleton

84 S.E. 120, 143 Ga. 46, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 277
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 16, 1915·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. A ground of a motion for a new trial which assigns error on the refusal to exclude evidence, but fails to set out either literally, or in substance such evidence, is insufficient to raise any question for decision by this court.

2. A ground of a motion for new trial which assigns error in the admitting of evidence “over objection,” but which does not show what objection was made to the evidence offered, is insufficient to invoke a ruling by this court.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the. Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent, Action for damages. Before Judge Rawlings. Emanuel superior court. September 6, 1913. Saffold & Jordan, for plaintiff in error. O’Steen & Wallace and Williams & Bradley, contra.

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

Georgia & Florida Railway Co. v. Stapleton, 84 S.E. 120, 143 Ga. 46, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 277 (Ga. 1915).

84 S.E. 120 (Georgia & Florida Railway Co. v. Stapleton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Overby v. Verner
91 S.E.2d 762 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)
Williams v. State
57 S.E.2d 610 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Sadler
155 S.E. 343 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Bryant v. State
145 S.E. 911 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Bostick v. State
130 S.E. 221 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Boatright v. State
116 S.E. 557 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Scarboro v. State
99 S.E. 637 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
City of Rome v. McWilliams
88 S.E. 931 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)