Hattaway v. Dickens

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hattaway v. Dickens

137 S.E. 57, 163 Ga. 755, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 57

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 17, 1927·No. No. 5513·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

Hill, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The chancellor may direct the jury to find a special verdict in an equity case, and to this end may propound to them proper questions to be answered; but such questions should present the issues involved clearly and fully to the jury so that the verdict shall unmistakably cover such issues. Lake v. Hardee, 57 Ga. 459; Brown v. Watters, 61 Ga. 23, 24. The questions propounded by the court in this case presented the issues involved with sufficient clearness and fnlMess. [760]*760Besides, after full opportunity, and after a request from the court to suggest questions of fact for submission to the jury, counsel for the losing party complaining of' the verdict or decree, because proper questions were not propounded to the jury, ought at least to explain why they were not suggested in due time. Visage v. McKellar, 58 Ga. 140.

Headnotes other than the first do not require elaboration.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., disqualified.

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

Hill, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The chancellor may direct the jury to find a special verdict in an equity case, and to this end may propound to them proper questions to be answered; but such questions should present the issues involved clearly and fully to the jury so that the verdict shall unmistakably cover such issues. Lake v. Hardee, 57 Ga. 459; Brown v. Watters, 61 Ga. 23, 24. The questions propounded by the court in this case presented the issues involved with sufficient clearness and fnlMess. [760]*760Besides, after full opportunity, and after a request from the court to suggest questions of fact for submission to the jury, counsel for the losing party complaining of' the verdict or decree, because proper questions were not propounded to the jury, ought at least to explain why they were not suggested in due time. Visage v. McKellar, 58 Ga. 140.

Headnotes other than the first do not require elaboration.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., disqualified.

Hattaway v. Dickens, 137 S.E. 57, 163 Ga. 755, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 57 (Ga. 1927).

Pincite

137 S.E. 57 (Hattaway v. Dickens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related