Mazzola v. Swift Manufacturing Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mazzola v. Swift Manufacturing Co.

132 S.E.2d 812, 108 Ga. App. 313, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 622

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 13, 1963

Docket40309

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 132 S.E.2d 812 (Mazzola v. Swift Manufacturing Co.) 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

Mazzola v. Swift Manufacturing Co., 132 S.E.2d 812, 108 Ga. App. 313, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 622 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

Excepting to a judgment overruling his amended motion for new trial, plaintiff in error has abandoned the general grounds, but insists upon the special grounds all of which complain of the failure of the court to charge certain principles of law. In none of them is set forth the pleadings or the evidence supporting the charges which it is contended the court should have given, nor is there pointed out where in the record these are to be found. Thus no question is presented for decision. Hardwick v. Georgia Power Co., 100 Ga. App. 38 (5) (110 SE2d 24); Hodges v. Gay, 100 Ga. App. 210 (110 SE2d 570); Beecher v. Farley, 104 Ga. App. 785 (123 SE2d 184); Pendry v. Addison, 105 Ga. App. 673 (1) (125 SE2d 523); Byck v. Lawton, 218 Ga. 858 (4) (131 SE2d 176). Accordingly, the judgment must be

Affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Bussell, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

Excepting to a judgment overruling his amended motion for new trial, plaintiff in error has abandoned the general grounds, but insists upon the special grounds all of which complain of the failure of the court to charge certain principles of law. In none of them is set forth the pleadings or the evidence supporting the charges which it is contended the court should have given, nor is there pointed out where in the record these are to be found. Thus no question is presented for decision. Hardwick v. Georgia Power Co., 100 Ga. App. 38 (5) (110 SE2d 24); Hodges v. Gay, 100 Ga. App. 210 (110 SE2d 570); Beecher v. Farley, 104 Ga. App. 785 (123 SE2d 184); Pendry v. Addison, 105 Ga. App. 673 (1) (125 SE2d 523); Byck v. Lawton, 218 Ga. 858 (4) (131 SE2d 176). Accordingly, the judgment must be

Affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Bussell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E.2d 812, 108 Ga. App. 313, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazzola-v-swift-manufacturing-co-gactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack