Sunlight Insurance v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sunlight Insurance v. Mitchell

88 S.E. 590, 17 Ga. App. 710, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 872

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1916

Docket6652

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.E. 590 (Sunlight Insurance v. Mitchell) 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

Sunlight Insurance v. Mitchell, 88 S.E. 590, 17 Ga. App. 710, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 872 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. The issues in a case are made by the pleadings therein. In this case the insurance company was sued on two policies of insurance on household furniture, issued on different dates to the same person. There was no plea that fraud by the insured in obtaining the second policy not only voided that policy but also the previous one; nor, so far as disclosed by the record, was any such contention made upon the trial, nor was the court requested to so instruct the jury, but on the contrary, when the judge, near the end of the charge of the court, inquired of counsel, ‘‘Anything else in this case you gentlemen think of?”'counsel for the defendant replied, “I think not, I think your honor has covered it.” Consequently this court will not pass on this question, which was raised for the first time in the motion for a new trial.

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

Judgment affirmed.

Russell, O. J., absent.

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

Broyles, J.

1. The issues in a case are made by the pleadings therein. In this case the insurance company was sued on two policies of insurance on household furniture, issued on different dates to the same person. There was no plea that fraud by the insured in obtaining the second policy not only voided that policy but also the previous one; nor, so far as disclosed by the record, was any such contention made upon the trial, nor was the court requested to so instruct the jury, but on the contrary, when the judge, near the end of the charge of the court, inquired of counsel, ‘‘Anything else in this case you gentlemen think of?”'counsel for the defendant replied, “I think not, I think your honor has covered it.” Consequently this court will not pass on this question, which was raised for the first time in the motion for a new trial.

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

Judgment affirmed.

Russell, O. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 590, 17 Ga. App. 710, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunlight-insurance-v-mitchell-gactapp-1916.