Jacobs' Pharmacy Co. v. Paschal

Supreme Court of Georgia

Jacobs' Pharmacy Co. v. Paschal

89 S.E. 213, 145 Ga. 346, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 313

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 14, 1916·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

We have carefully considered all of the grounds of the motion for new trial. It appears that there was no error in the charge of the court. Certain omissions to charge, without request, matters which if given would have been merely elaborative of the charge as delivered, furnish no 'ground for the grant of a new trial. Though the verdict was large, it can not be held as a matter of law to be excessive.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Action for damages. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. December 31, 1914.

G. T. & L. O. Hophins, and Rosser, Brandon, Slaton & Phillips, for plaintiff in error. Colquitt & Conyers, contra.

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

Atkinson, J.

We have carefully considered all of the grounds of the motion for new trial. It appears that there was no error in the charge of the court. Certain omissions to charge, without request, matters which if given would have been merely elaborative of the charge as delivered, furnish no 'ground for the grant of a new trial. Though the verdict was large, it can not be held as a matter of law to be excessive.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Action for damages. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. December 31, 1914.

G. T. & L. O. Hophins, and Rosser, Brandon, Slaton & Phillips, for plaintiff in error. Colquitt & Conyers, contra.

Jacobs' Pharmacy Co. v. Paschal, 89 S.E. 213, 145 Ga. 346, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 313 (Ga. 1916).

Pincite

89 S.E. 213 (Jacobs' Pharmacy Co. v. Paschal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related