New v. Southern Railway Co.

71 S.E. 1104, 136 Ga. 778, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 221
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 22, 1911·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Holden, J.

Where a verdict is not demanded by the law and the evidence, the first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed; and in such a case, where the presiding judge specifies in his order granting a new trial that the same is granted solely on a named ground of the motion for a new trial, wherein complaint is made that the court erred in a specified charge given the jury, this court will not determine whether or not there was error in such charge. Civil Code (1910), § 6204; Van Giesen v. Queen Insurance Co., 132 Ga. 515 (64 S. E. 456); Williams v. Brogdon, 133 Ga. 691 (66 S. E. 788).

Judgment affirmed.

Bech, J., absent. The other Justices concur.

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

New v. Southern Railway Co., 71 S.E. 1104, 136 Ga. 778, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 221 (Ga. 1911).

71 S.E. 1104 (New v. Southern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daniel v. Mitchell
168 S.E. 12 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Sampson v. Smith
116 S.E. 652 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Parks v. Stevens
94 S.E. 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Southern Fertilizer & Chemical Co. v. Peacock
91 S.E. 928 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Callahan v. Athens Railway & Electric Co.
87 S.E. 763 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)