Rountree v. Neely
94 S.E. 542, 147 Ga. 435, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 240
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rountree v. Neely, 94 S.E. 542, 147 Ga. 435, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 240 (Ga. 1917).
94 S.E. 542 (Rountree v. Neely) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)