Schwall v. Quitman Oil Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Schwall v. Quitman Oil Co.

94 S.E. 648, 21 Ga. App. 396, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 601

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1917

Docket8629

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 648 (Schwall v. Quitman Oil Co.) 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

Schwall v. Quitman Oil Co., 94 S.E. 648, 21 Ga. App. 396, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 601 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

BloodwortH, J.

1. When read in the light of the entire charge and considered in connection with the evidence, there was no error harmful to the defendant in the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made.'

2. Where remarks are made in the hearing of the jurors by the judge during the trial of the case, which counsel insists were of such a character as to prejudice the minds of the jurors hearing them against the cause of their client, a motion should be made to have a mistrial declared, and upon the judge’s refusal to grant such a motion his ruling would be subject to review. Counsel, having failed to make such motion and having proceeded without objection with the trial, can not after verdict raise the question as to the prejudicial nature of the remarks complained of in the motion for a new trial. Rogers v. State, 18 Ga. App. 332 (90 S. E. 356); Perdue v. State, 135 Ga. 277 (69 S. E. 184); Stapleton v. State, 19 Ga. App. 36 (13) (90 S. E. 1029); Wilcox v. State, 19 Ga. App. 83 (4) (90 S. E. 1032).

3. There was evidence sufficient to. support the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from Worth superior court — Judge Cox. December 9, 1916.

J. B. Williamson, J. II. Tipton, for plaintiffs in error. Fulwood & Hargrett, contra.

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

BloodwortH, J.

1. When read in the light of the entire charge and considered in connection with the evidence, there was no error harmful to the defendant in the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made.'

2. Where remarks are made in the hearing of the jurors by the judge during the trial of the case, which counsel insists were of such a character as to prejudice the minds of the jurors hearing them against the cause of their client, a motion should be made to have a mistrial declared, and upon the judge’s refusal to grant such a motion his ruling would be subject to review. Counsel, having failed to make such motion and having proceeded without objection with the trial, can not after verdict raise the question as to the prejudicial nature of the remarks complained of in the motion for a new trial. Rogers v. State, 18 Ga. App. 332 (90 S. E. 356); Perdue v. State, 135 Ga. 277 (69 S. E. 184); Stapleton v. State, 19 Ga. App. 36 (13) (90 S. E. 1029); Wilcox v. State, 19 Ga. App. 83 (4) (90 S. E. 1032).

3. There was evidence sufficient to. support the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Complaint; from Worth superior court — Judge Cox. December 9, 1916.

J. B. Williamson, J. II. Tipton, for plaintiffs in error. Fulwood & Hargrett, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E. 648, 21 Ga. App. 396, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwall-v-quitman-oil-co-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack