Henslee v. Harper

97 S.E. 667, 148 Ga. 621, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 467
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 11, 1918
DocketNo. 1003
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 667 (Henslee v. Harper) 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
Henslee v. Harper, 97 S.E. 667, 148 Ga. 621, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 467 (Ga. 1918).

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

1. Assignments of error upon the admission of evidence, in order to avail the plaintiff in error here, must show, not only in what respects the evidence admitted was objectionable, but that this objection was urged at the time of the admission of the evidence; and it is not sufficient in a ground of a motion for a new trial to state that the court committed error “in admitting in evidence, over objection of movants,” certain specified evidence, and then, after stating the evidence admitted, to allege that it was error to admit this evidence because it was incompetent for certain specified reasons. Such a recital in a ground of a motion for a new trial does not show that the ground upon which the evidence was objectionable was urged at the time the evidence was offered. The numerous grounds of the fnotion for a new trial complaining of the admission of testimony are insufficient to raise any question here, for the reason indicated.

2. A large part of the evidence incorporated in the brief of evidence is made up of numerous lengthy documents which are set out in full in the record; no attempt being made to abbreviate or brief them as required by law. This being true, this court, as it has frequently ruled, will not undertake to pass upon the assignments of error requiring a consideration of the evidence. It will be presumed that there was sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict. Wall v. Mercer, 119 Ga. 346 (46 S. E. 420); Hathcock v. McGouirk, 119 Ga. 973 (47 S. E. 563). Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Johns v. League, Duvall & Powell Inc.
45 S.E.2d 211 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Hill v. State
39 S.E.2d 675 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Emmett v. State
195 Ga. 517 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Boston Insurance Co. v. Harmon
18 S.E.2d 84 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Bowman v. Givens
9 S.E.2d 833 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Stapleton v. Union Central Life Insurance
187 S.E. 631 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Trussell v. State
182 S.E. 514 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Allen v. E. Mason Roberts Enterprises
181 S.E. 578 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Herndon v. State
174 S.E. 597 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Sims v. State
170 S.E. 58 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Whitener v. State
148 S.E. 305 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Attaway v. Odom
144 S.E. 146 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Atlanta Life Insurance v. Jackson
130 S.E. 378 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Van Dyke v. Van Dyke
119 S.E. 436 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Securities Trust Co. v. Marshall
118 S.E. 478 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Pelham & Havana Railroad v. Walker
108 S.E. 814 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 S.E. 667, 148 Ga. 621, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henslee-v-harper-ga-1918.