Sulter v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sulter v. State

95 S.E. 532, 22 Ga. App. 105, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 174

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 2, 1918

Docket9465

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 532 (Sulter v. State) 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

Sulter v. State, 95 S.E. 532, 22 Ga. App. 105, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 174 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. The grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, not being specifically argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are deemed abandoned. The general statement in the brief, that “the recitals of fact and statement of error in the motion and amended motion for a new trial clearly state the issues in the case and the same is respectfully submitted to the court,” is not sufficient to change the rule. Youmans v. Moore, 11 Ga. App. 66 (74 S. E. 710); Muse v. Hall, 18 Ga. App. 651 (90 S. E. 222); James v. Boyett, 19 Ga. App. 157 (91 S. E. 219).

2.' The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodioorth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. The grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, not being specifically argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are deemed abandoned. The general statement in the brief, that “the recitals of fact and statement of error in the motion and amended motion for a new trial clearly state the issues in the case and the same is respectfully submitted to the court,” is not sufficient to change the rule. Youmans v. Moore, 11 Ga. App. 66 (74 S. E. 710); Muse v. Hall, 18 Ga. App. 651 (90 S. E. 222); James v. Boyett, 19 Ga. App. 157 (91 S. E. 219).

2.' The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodioorth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 532, 22 Ga. App. 105, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sulter-v-state-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack