Savannah & Southern Railway v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Savannah & Southern Railway v. Davis

112 S.E. 907, 28 Ga. App. 654, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 756

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 14, 1922

Docket12972

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 112 S.E. 907 (Savannah & Southern Railway v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Savannah & Southern Railway v. Davis, 112 S.E. 907, 28 Ga. App. 654, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 756 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. When considered in connection with all the facts of the case (including the amount of the verdict, $2,000) and the entire charge, no error of the court that would require the grant of a new trial appears in any of the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial.

2. The grounds of the motion which complain that the court refused to comply with certain written requests to charge cannot be considered by this court, for two reasons: (a) It does not appear that these requests were tendered to the court before the jury retired “ to consider of their verdict.” Civil Code (1910), § 6084 ; Penal Code, § 1087. (5) It is not alleged that the requests to charge were “ pertinent and applicable to the facts of the case.” Killabrew v. State, 26 Ga. App. 232 (2) (105 S. E. 711).

3. Special grounds 12 and 15 of the motion for a new trial are too indefinite to present any question for determination by this court.

4. The verdict being supported by evidence and approved by the trial judge, this court will not disturb it.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. When considered in connection with all the facts of the case (including the amount of the verdict, $2,000) and the entire charge, no error of the court that would require the grant of a new trial appears in any of the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial.

2. The grounds of the motion which complain that the court refused to comply with certain written requests to charge cannot be considered by this court, for two reasons: (a) It does not appear that these requests were tendered to the court before the jury retired “ to consider of their verdict.” Civil Code (1910), § 6084 ; Penal Code, § 1087. (5) It is not alleged that the requests to charge were “ pertinent and applicable to the facts of the case.” Killabrew v. State, 26 Ga. App. 232 (2) (105 S. E. 711).

3. Special grounds 12 and 15 of the motion for a new trial are too indefinite to present any question for determination by this court.

4. The verdict being supported by evidence and approved by the trial judge, this court will not disturb it.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 907, 28 Ga. App. 654, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savannah-southern-railway-v-davis-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack