Georgia Power Co. v. Tolbert

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Power Co. v. Tolbert

158 S.E. 760, 43 Ga. App. 328, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 334

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 13, 1931

Docket21335

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 158 S.E. 760 (Georgia Power Co. v. Tolbert) 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

Georgia Power Co. v. Tolbert, 158 S.E. 760, 43 Ga. App. 328, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 334 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under the pleadings and the evidence the verdict was authorized. The contention argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, that “a grantee or alienee of property causing a nuisance is not liable for- damages caused by its continued maintenance and accruing prior to a notice or request to abate” (Roberts v. Ga. Ry. & Power Co., 151 Ga. 241, 106 S. E. 258, 14 A. L. R. 1089), was not raised on the trial of the case, either by the pleadings or the evidence, and will not be considered by this court.

2. In the light of the entire charge of the court and the facts of the case, the grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining of various excerpts from the charge and of the failure to charge upon a certain alleged material issue, show no error requiring another trial of the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under the pleadings and the evidence the verdict was authorized. The contention argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, that “a grantee or alienee of property causing a nuisance is not liable for- damages caused by its continued maintenance and accruing prior to a notice or request to abate” (Roberts v. Ga. Ry. & Power Co., 151 Ga. 241, 106 S. E. 258, 14 A. L. R. 1089), was not raised on the trial of the case, either by the pleadings or the evidence, and will not be considered by this court.

2. In the light of the entire charge of the court and the facts of the case, the grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining of various excerpts from the charge and of the failure to charge upon a certain alleged material issue, show no error requiring another trial of the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 760, 43 Ga. App. 328, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-power-co-v-tolbert-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack