Jones v. Wall

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jones v. Wall

96 S.E. 344, 22 Ga. App. 513, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 583

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 12, 1918

Docket9450

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 96 S.E. 344 (Jones v. Wall) 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

Jones v. Wall, 96 S.E. 344, 22 Ga. App. 513, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 583 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

1. “This court can not consider exceptions to the refusal of the trial judge to comply with written requests to charge, unless it is made to appear that they were tendered to the court before the jury retired to consider the case.” Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Barrow, 18 Ga. App. 261 (89 S. E. 383). It not being so made to appear in this case, the first and second grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are without merit.

2. “Where a fact is established by undisputed evidence, it is not error for the judge, in his charge to the jury, to assume or intimate that the fact has been proved.” Dexter Banking Co. v. McCook, 7 Ga. App. 436 (67 S. E. 113); Ga., Fla. & Ala. Ry. Co. v. Jernigan, 128 Ga. 501 (57 S. E. 791). The third ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial is without merit, since it comes properly within this rule.

3. There being sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict, which has the approval of the trial, judge, this court is without authority to set the verdict aside.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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