Hughes v. Dannenberg Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hughes v. Dannenberg Co.

104 S.E. 453, 25 Ga. App. 699, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 153

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 13, 1920

Docket11372

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 S.E. 453 (Hughes v. Dannenberg Co.) 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

Hughes v. Dannenberg Co., 104 S.E. 453, 25 Ga. App. 699, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

The action of the trial judge in granting a second new trial to the defendant, not on account of the verdict rendered but on account of error committed by himself, will not be disturbed, because the charge of the court was in some respects erroneous and in other respects confusing; and, since the verdict, though authorized, was not demanded, the rights of defendant may have been thus prejudiced.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

The action of the trial judge in granting a second new trial to the defendant, not on account of the verdict rendered but on account of error committed by himself, will not be disturbed, because the charge of the court was in some respects erroneous and in other respects confusing; and, since the verdict, though authorized, was not demanded, the rights of defendant may have been thus prejudiced.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.E. 453, 25 Ga. App. 699, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-dannenberg-co-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack