Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Rountree v. Neely

Rountree v. Neely

94 S.E. 542, 147 Ga. 435, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 240
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 13, 1917
DocketNo. 160
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 542 (Rountree v. Neely) 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
Rountree v. Neely, 94 S.E. 542, 147 Ga. 435, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 240 (Ga. 1917).

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. The grounds of the motion for a new trial which except to the failure of the court to give certain specific instructions to the jury are without merit. The general charge covered the issues in the ease, though in some respects but meagerly; and if more specific instructions were desired upon certain issues, a timely request therefor, should have been made. '

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and the court -did . not err in denying the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Gilbert, J., disqualified.

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

Related

Allen v. Heys
51 S.E.2d 417 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Griffin v. State
24 S.E.2d 399 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Wright v. Bales
7 S.E.2d 765 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Edge v. Calhoun National Bank
118 S.E. 359 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Southern Railway Co. v. Ray
113 S.E. 590 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 S.E. 542, 147 Ga. 435, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rountree-v-neely-ga-1917.