Oxford v. Reynolds

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Oxford v. Reynolds

176 S.E. 411, 49 Ga. App. 514, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 454

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 18, 1934

Docket23765

StatusPublished

This text of 176 S.E. 411 (Oxford v. Reynolds) 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

Oxford v. Reynolds, 176 S.E. 411, 49 Ga. App. 514, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 454 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Under repeated decisions of this court, an assignment of error in an appeal to the appellate division of the municipal court of Atlanta from an order of the trial judge overruling an oral motion for new trial, which does not set forth the grounds of the oral motion, is incomplete and should be dismissed by the appellate division. However, in such an appeal, where, as in the instant case, there is an assignment of error upon the order overruling the oral motion for new trial, and a statement in the appeal that the motion contained the grounds that the verdict and judgment were contrary to law and the evidence, the grounds of the oral motion were sufficiently set forth; and the appellate division of the court erred in holding to the contrary and in dismissing the appeal. Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Under repeated decisions of this court, an assignment of error in an appeal to the appellate division of the municipal court of Atlanta from an order of the trial judge overruling an oral motion for new trial, which does not set forth the grounds of the oral motion, is incomplete and should be dismissed by the appellate division. However, in such an appeal, where, as in the instant case, there is an assignment of error upon the order overruling the oral motion for new trial, and a statement in the appeal that the motion contained the grounds that the verdict and judgment were contrary to law and the evidence, the grounds of the oral motion were sufficiently set forth; and the appellate division of the court erred in holding to the contrary and in dismissing the appeal. Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 S.E. 411, 49 Ga. App. 514, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oxford-v-reynolds-gactapp-1934.