Salmon v. Rogers

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Salmon v. Rogers

155 S.E. 507, 42 Ga. App. 183, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 285

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Salmon v. Rogers. Read the opinion of the Court — 40 Ga. App. 73 →

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 7, 1930·No. 20679·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. In the light of the facts of the ease and the entire charge of the court, the alleged errors of commission and of omission in the charge do not require a reversal of the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

2. The verdict in favor of the defendant was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. In the light of the facts of the ease and the entire charge of the court, the alleged errors of commission and of omission in the charge do not require a reversal of the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

2. The verdict in favor of the defendant was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Salmon v. Rogers, 155 S.E. 507, 42 Ga. App. 183, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 285 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

155 S.E. 507 (Salmon v. Rogers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.