Jenkins v. Cook

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jenkins v. Cook

121 S.E. 705, 31 Ga. App. 527, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 23

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 16, 1924

Docket14787, 14788

StatusPublished

This text of 121 S.E. 705 (Jenkins v. Cook) 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

Jenkins v. Cook, 121 S.E. 705, 31 Ga. App. 527, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 23 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. “Failure to give a certain instruction to the jury in connection with an instruction given which was correct in itself cannot he taken advantage of by excepting to the instruction given.” Atlanta & West Point Railroad Co. v. Miller, 23 Ga. App. 347 (3) (98 S. E. 248); See Ray v. State, 23 Ga. App. 124 (97 S. E. 555); Roberts v. State, 114 Ga. 450 (2), 452 (40 S. E. 297), and cases cited. Under the rulings in the foregoing cases the first special ground of the motion for a new trial presents nothing for the consideration of this court.

2. Under the facts of the case it was not error for the judge to fail to charge upon the subject of res judicata.

3. As this court cannot say that the verdict, which has the approval of the judge who tried the case, is unsupported by any evidence, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed; cross-bill dismissed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. “Failure to give a certain instruction to the jury in connection with an instruction given which was correct in itself cannot he taken advantage of by excepting to the instruction given.” Atlanta & West Point Railroad Co. v. Miller, 23 Ga. App. 347 (3) (98 S. E. 248); See Ray v. State, 23 Ga. App. 124 (97 S. E. 555); Roberts v. State, 114 Ga. 450 (2), 452 (40 S. E. 297), and cases cited. Under the rulings in the foregoing cases the first special ground of the motion for a new trial presents nothing for the consideration of this court.

2. Under the facts of the case it was not error for the judge to fail to charge upon the subject of res judicata.

3. As this court cannot say that the verdict, which has the approval of the judge who tried the case, is unsupported by any evidence, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed; cross-bill dismissed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.E. 705, 31 Ga. App. 527, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-cook-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack