O'Neal v. O'Neal

37 S.E. 375, 112 Ga. 348, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 153
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 29, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 S.E. 375 (O'Neal v. O'Neal) 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
O'Neal v. O'Neal, 37 S.E. 375, 112 Ga. 348, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 153 (Ga. 1900).

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where in a motion for a new trial there is a general assignment of error upon a designated portion of the judge’s charge and no specific assignment of error thereon, and the language complained of states a correct abstract principle of law, the ground of the motion presents no cause for reversing a judgment refusing a new trial. Anderson v. Railway Co., 107 Ga. 501; Clay v. Smith, 108 Ga. 189.

2. The .request to charge was, in so far as legal and pertinent to the case, covered by the general charge. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the verdict, and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Jefferson v. State
61 S.E. 997 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 S.E. 375, 112 Ga. 348, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-oneal-ga-1900.