Mize v. Americus Manufacturing & Improvement Co.

32 S.E. 22, 106 Ga. 140, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 36
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 13, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 32 S.E. 22 (Mize v. Americus Manufacturing & Improvement Co.) 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
Mize v. Americus Manufacturing & Improvement Co., 32 S.E. 22, 106 Ga. 140, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 36 (Ga. 1898).

Opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

The only ruling complained of in the present case is the dismissal of a motion for a new trial. The-record discloses that the movant had not filed a brief of the evidence in- due time. On the day set for the hearing of the motion, however, it was amended by adding a ground alleging that one of the jurors who rendered the verdict complained of was disqualified by reason of his relationship to the respondent in the motion, and movant stated that the only ground she-would insist upon was that embodied in the amendment. It-was urged in the argument here, that the court should have passed upon the merits of this ground, and either- have granted or refused a new trial; that this could have been properly done, for the reason that a determination of this ground, which was the only one insisted upon by movant, would not have required any consideration whatever of the evidence introduced at the trial. The precise question thus made was dealt with by this court in Baker v. Johnson & Harris, 99 Ga. 374, where, upon a similar state of facts, this court affirmed a judgment dismissing a motion for a new trial upon the ground that no brief of evidence had been filed in due time.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring..

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

Related

Jill Brothers Inc. v. Holmes
7 S.E.2d 797 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Dollar v. Fred W. Amend Co.
198 S.E. 753 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Griffin v. State
177 S.E. 514 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Groves v. Groves
171 S.E. 261 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Morris v. Gilham-Schoen Electric Co.
150 S.E. 924 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Dunn v. Goodrich Rubber Co.
122 S.E. 793 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Turner v. Spell Live Stock Co.
120 S.E. 786 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Butler v. Jaques & Tinsley Co.
119 S.E. 469 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Whitaker v. State
75 S.E. 254 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1912)
Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. Hamer
58 S.E. 54 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Moxley v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co.
50 S.E. 339 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Blakeman v. State
49 S.E. 261 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Brooks v. Proctor & Huddleston
36 S.E. 99 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Mize v. Americus Mfg. & Improvement Co.
34 S.E. 583 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 S.E. 22, 106 Ga. 140, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mize-v-americus-manufacturing-improvement-co-ga-1898.