Hunter v. Mahaffey
This text of 86 S.E. 538 (Hunter v. Mahaffey) 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.
Opinion
1. The charge complained of in the fifth special ground of the motion for new trial was authorized by the evidence.
2. Mere omission to charge, without request, as to the burden of proof and preponderance of evidence will not require a new trial. Small v. Williams, 87 Ga. 681 (13 S. E. 589).
3. One of the special grounds of the motion for new trial not covered by the following rulings was not approved by the trial judge. The others were not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error.
4. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. •
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
86 S.E. 538, 144 Ga. 185, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-mahaffey-ga-1915.