Robinson v. Gray

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Robinson v. Gray

95 S.E. 324, 22 Ga. App. 25, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 113

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 13, 1918

Docket9228

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 324 (Robinson v. Gray) 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

Robinson v. Gray, 95 S.E. 324, 22 Ga. App. 25, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 113 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Nade, C. J.

1. The court admitted, over objection, certain testimony as to the law of South Carolina, where the injury to the plaintiff’s property occurred. Regardless- of whether this testimony was properly admitted or not; it wasv expressly, withdrawn from the consideration of the jury by the charge of the court in the following instruction: “Now there has been something said, about the law on this case, the law of South Carolina and the law of Georgia. You will pay no attention to that, except what you get from the court.” Evidence can be as effectually withdrawn by means of the charge of the court as by a ruling during the course of the trial. Coweta County v. Central Railway Co., 4 Ga. App. 94 (5) (60 S. E. 1018). See also Verdery v. Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co., 82 Ga. 675 (2) (9 S. E. 1133); Phœnix Insurance Co. v. Gray, 107 Ga. 110 (3), 113 (32 S. E. 948); McLean v. Hattan, 127 Ga. 579 (56 S. E. 643). It is apparent, therefore, that there is no merit in the only special ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. There being evidence to support the verdict, the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

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

Nade, C. J.

1. The court admitted, over objection, certain testimony as to the law of South Carolina, where the injury to the plaintiff’s property occurred. Regardless- of whether this testimony was properly admitted or not; it wasv expressly, withdrawn from the consideration of the jury by the charge of the court in the following instruction: “Now there has been something said, about the law on this case, the law of South Carolina and the law of Georgia. You will pay no attention to that, except what you get from the court.” Evidence can be as effectually withdrawn by means of the charge of the court as by a ruling during the course of the trial. Coweta County v. Central Railway Co., 4 Ga. App. 94 (5) (60 S. E. 1018). See also Verdery v. Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co., 82 Ga. 675 (2) (9 S. E. 1133); Phœnix Insurance Co. v. Gray, 107 Ga. 110 (3), 113 (32 S. E. 948); McLean v. Hattan, 127 Ga. 579 (56 S. E. 643). It is apparent, therefore, that there is no merit in the only special ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. There being evidence to support the verdict, the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 324, 22 Ga. App. 25, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-gray-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack