Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Heath v. Shackelford Bros.

Heath v. Shackelford Bros.

95 S.E. 312, 22 Ga. App. 81, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 155
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 15, 1918
Docket8970
StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 312 (Heath v. Shackelford Bros.) 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
Heath v. Shackelford Bros., 95 S.E. 312, 22 Ga. App. 81, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 155 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

'Hone of the grounds of the motion for a new trial being argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiif in error, they will be treated as abandoned. The general statement in the brief, that the plaintiff in error contends “that it was error not to grant a new trial [82]*82on each and every ground of the original and amended motion for a new trial,” is not sufficient to change this well-established rule of practice. Pelham Phosphate Co. v. Daniels, 21 Ga. App. 549 (94 S. E. 846), and the numerous cases there cited.

Decided March 15, 1918. Complaint; from Wilcox superior court—Judge Crum. May-19, 1917. M. B. Gannon, Max E. Land, for plaintiff in error. Ilal Lawson, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhins and Luhe, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pelham Phosphate Co. v. Daniels
94 S.E. 846 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.E. 312, 22 Ga. App. 81, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-v-shackelford-bros-gactapp-1918.