Lanier v. Byrd

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lanier v. Byrd

41 S.E. 684, 115 Ga. 200, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 349

DecidedApril 3, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 41 S.E. 684 (Lanier v. Byrd) 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.

Bluebook

Lanier v. Byrd, 41 S.E. 684, 115 Ga. 200, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 349 (Ga. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Fish, J.

That part of the petition for certiorari which complained of a refusal to strike portions of plaintiff’s petition was contradicted by the answer of the judge of the city court, which was not traversed; and hence the alleged error will not be considered by this court. The evidence sought to be introduced was objectionable as hearsay, and was properly excluded. The written request to charge did not contain a correct proposition of law, and the refusal to give it to the jury was consequently not erroneous. Advantage was not taken of the alleged improper conduct of counsel in argument by a motion for a mistrial, and it was too late to urge such alleged misconduct, in a petition for certiorari, as a reason for granting a new trial. The evidence, which was substantially the same as that introduced in the case of Lanier v. Byrd, ante, a case involving the same principles of law, was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Little and Lewis, JJ., absent.

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

Fish, J.

That part of the petition for certiorari which complained of a refusal to strike portions of plaintiff’s petition was contradicted by the answer of the judge of the city court, which was not traversed; and hence the alleged error will not be considered by this court. The evidence sought to be introduced was objectionable as hearsay, and was properly excluded. The written request to charge did not contain a correct proposition of law, and the refusal to give it to the jury was consequently not erroneous. Advantage was not taken of the alleged improper conduct of counsel in argument by a motion for a mistrial, and it was too late to urge such alleged misconduct, in a petition for certiorari, as a reason for granting a new trial. The evidence, which was substantially the same as that introduced in the case of Lanier v. Byrd, ante, a case involving the same principles of law, was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Little and Lewis, JJ., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 S.E. 684, 115 Ga. 200, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanier-v-byrd-ga-1902.