Hinkle v. Cooner

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hinkle v. Cooner

138 S.E. 855, 37 Ga. App. 39, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 447

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 14, 1927

Docket18102

StatusPublished

This text of 138 S.E. 855 (Hinkle v. Cooner) 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

Hinkle v. Cooner, 138 S.E. 855, 37 Ga. App. 39, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 447 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles, C. J.

1. The- amendment to the petition did not materially change the cause of action set forth in the original petition, and was properly allowed.

2. The admission in evidence of the extract from an ordinance of the City of Macon, as set forth in the motion for a new trial, was not error. The evidence authorized the jury to find that the ordinance had been violated by the defendant, and that such violation contributed to the injuries sued for. The case of Fisher v. Georgia Northern Railway Co., 35 Ga. App. 733 (134 S. E. 827), cited by counsel for the plaintiff in error, is distinguishable by its particular facts from the instant case.

3. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of in the motion for a new trial, was not error for any reason assigned.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke amd Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Jones, Parle & Johnston, for plaintiff in error. Walter DePore, James O. Pistes, Charles H. Garrett, contra.

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

Bboyles, C. J.

1. The- amendment to the petition did not materially change the cause of action set forth in the original petition, and was properly allowed.

2. The admission in evidence of the extract from an ordinance of the City of Macon, as set forth in the motion for a new trial, was not error. The evidence authorized the jury to find that the ordinance had been violated by the defendant, and that such violation contributed to the injuries sued for. The case of Fisher v. Georgia Northern Railway Co., 35 Ga. App. 733 (134 S. E. 827), cited by counsel for the plaintiff in error, is distinguishable by its particular facts from the instant case.

3. The excerpt from the charge of the court, complained of in the motion for a new trial, was not error for any reason assigned.

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke amd Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Jones, Parle & Johnston, for plaintiff in error. Walter DePore, James O. Pistes, Charles H. Garrett, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E. 855, 37 Ga. App. 39, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinkle-v-cooner-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack