Rogers v. McElroy

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rogers v. McElroy

126 S.E.2d 294, 106 Ga. App. 120, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 639

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 30, 1962

Docket39476

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 126 S.E.2d 294 (Rogers v. McElroy) 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

Rogers v. McElroy, 126 S.E.2d 294, 106 Ga. App. 120, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Frankum, Judge.

1. Whether or not a jury should be sent out to view property involved in litigation is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court. Moore v. Macon Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 180 Ga. 335 (178 SE 711); Bibb County v. Reese, 115 Ga. 346 (41 SE 636); City of Rome v. Herron, 26 Ga. App. 39 (105 SE 379); Shahan v. American Tel. &c. Co., 72 Ga. App. 749 (35 SE2d 5). See Green, Ga. Law of Evidence, § 85. The record in the instant case does not show an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying defendant’s motion that the jury be sent to view certain property involved in the controversy between the parties.

2. The evidence supports the verdict. The court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

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

Frankum, Judge.

1. Whether or not a jury should be sent out to view property involved in litigation is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court. Moore v. Macon Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 180 Ga. 335 (178 SE 711); Bibb County v. Reese, 115 Ga. 346 (41 SE 636); City of Rome v. Herron, 26 Ga. App. 39 (105 SE 379); Shahan v. American Tel. &c. Co., 72 Ga. App. 749 (35 SE2d 5). See Green, Ga. Law of Evidence, § 85. The record in the instant case does not show an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying defendant’s motion that the jury be sent to view certain property involved in the controversy between the parties.

2. The evidence supports the verdict. The court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E.2d 294, 106 Ga. App. 120, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-mcelroy-gactapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack