Roper v. Roberts

84 S.E. 553, 143 Ga. 128, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 318
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 11, 1915·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. The overruling of a ground of a motion for a new trial which complains that certain interrogatories were not executed by the two commissioners agreed upon, but which failed to show that written notice of the exception to their execution had been given as required by [129]*129the Civil Code (1910), § 5904, or that the interrogatories had not been of file in the clerk’s office for more than twenty-four hours before the trial, furnishes no ground for reversal. Rogers v. Truett, 73 Ga. 386.

February 11, 1915. Partition. Before Judge Patterson. -Cherokee superior court. December 6, 1913. Herbert Clay and Charles H. Griffin, for plaintiff in error. J. G. Roberts and D. W. Blair, contra.

2. “Admissions of one of the parties to the suit, given in evidence by the other, need not be referred to specially in charging the jury, where no request to do so is made by either party.” Hawkins v. Kermode, 85 Ga. 116 (11 S. E. 560).

3. There was no merit in any of the other grounds of the motion for a new trial. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.

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

Roper v. Roberts, 84 S.E. 553, 143 Ga. 128, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 318 (Ga. 1915).

84 S.E. 553 (Roper v. Roberts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Payne v. Thebaut
180 S.E. 725 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Trammell v. Shirley
145 S.E. 486 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Harmony Grove Telephone Co. v. Potts
100 S.E. 236 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)