Hattaway v. Dickens

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hattaway v. Dickens

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

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 17, 1927

DocketNo. 5513

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 137 S.E. 57 (Hattaway v. Dickens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.E. 57, 163 Ga. 755, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hattaway-v-dickens-ga-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack