Holcombe v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holcombe v. State

126 S.E. 288, 33 Ga. App. 144, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 775

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 9, 1924

Docket15848

StatusPublished

This text of 126 S.E. 288 (Holcombe v. State) 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

Holcombe v. State, 126 S.E. 288, 33 Ga. App. 144, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 775 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

It is stated in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error that the single issue in this ease is whether the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, it is never error for the judge to refuse to direct a verdict.

The general grounds of the motion for a new trial are not referred to in the brief of plaintiff in error, and are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

It is stated in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error that the single issue in this ease is whether the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant. Under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, it is never error for the judge to refuse to direct a verdict.

The general grounds of the motion for a new trial are not referred to in the brief of plaintiff in error, and are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E. 288, 33 Ga. App. 144, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holcombe-v-state-gactapp-1924.