Satterfield v. Ayers

73 S.E. 1091, 10 Ga. App. 742, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 667
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 6, 1912·No. 3818·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. Where an attorney, in the argument of a ease before the

jury, uses improper language which is claimed to be prejudicial, it is the duty of the attorney for the opposite party to invoke a ruling of the trial judge thereon, either by the declaration of a mistrial or by reprimanding the off ending attorney and giving proper instructions in reference to the language so used to the jury; and where no such action is invoked, the use of the improper language can not subsequently be made a ground of a motion for a new trial. Lavender v. State, 9 Ga. App. 856 (72 S. E. 437).

2. Except as above decided, no error of law is complained of; and the verdict is supported by the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

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

Satterfield v. Ayers, 73 S.E. 1091, 10 Ga. App. 742, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 667 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

73 S.E. 1091 (Satterfield v. Ayers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hart v. State
179 S.E.2d 346 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Shippen v. Thompson
166 S.E. 41 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Southern Railway Co. v. Ray
113 S.E. 590 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Ware v. Lamar
90 S.E. 364 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Lenox Drug Co. v. New England Jewelry Co.
85 S.E. 681 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Hinsman v. State
81 S.E. 367 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)