Hamilton v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hamilton v. State

94 S.E. 824, 21 Ga. App. 660, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 459

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 22, 1918

Docket9317

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 824 (Hamilton v. State) 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

Hamilton v. State, 94 S.E. 824, 21 Ga. App. 660, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 459 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

In the case of Hale v. State, ante, 658, it was held that “So much of the act approved November 30, 1915 (Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1915, p. 1131, regulating the use of automobiles, as undertakes to make penal the failure of any operator of a motor-vehicle, when meeting any vehicle approaching in the opposite direction, to ‘turn his vehicle to the right so as to give one half of the traveled roadway, if practicable, and a fair opportunity to the other to pass by without unnecessary interference/ is too uncertain and indefinite in its terms to be capable of enforcement.” The indictment in the instant case being based upon that portion of the act referred to in the above opinion which is therein declared to be “too uncertain and indefinite in its terms to be capable of enforcement,” the verdict is contrary to law and the judgment must be Reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., coneur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

In the case of Hale v. State, ante, 658, it was held that “So much of the act approved November 30, 1915 (Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1915, p. 1131, regulating the use of automobiles, as undertakes to make penal the failure of any operator of a motor-vehicle, when meeting any vehicle approaching in the opposite direction, to ‘turn his vehicle to the right so as to give one half of the traveled roadway, if practicable, and a fair opportunity to the other to pass by without unnecessary interference/ is too uncertain and indefinite in its terms to be capable of enforcement.” The indictment in the instant case being based upon that portion of the act referred to in the above opinion which is therein declared to be “too uncertain and indefinite in its terms to be capable of enforcement,” the verdict is contrary to law and the judgment must be Reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., coneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E. 824, 21 Ga. App. 660, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-state-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack