Johnson v. Morris

118 S.E. 766, 30 Ga. App. 673, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 618
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 26, 1923·No. 14670·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The charge upon the subject of punitive damages was authorized by the pleadings and the evidence, and was- not subject to any of the exceptions taken.

2. The charge of the court as a whole was full and clear and a correct presentation of the law applicable to the facts of the case, and was not subject to any of the criticisms made upon it in the motion for a new trial.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and this court, under the facts of the case, cannot hold that it was excessive. The overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Nathan Harris, for plaintiff in error. G. H. Porter, contra.

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

Johnson v. Morris, 118 S.E. 766, 30 Ga. App. 673, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

118 S.E. 766 (Johnson v. Morris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blanchard v. Westview Cemetery, Inc.
211 S.E.2d 135 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Johnson v. Morris
123 S.E. 707 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)