Tallulah Falls Railway Co. v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tallulah Falls Railway Co. v. Davis

111 S.E. 444, 28 Ga. App. 365, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 520

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 9, 1922

Docket12956

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 444 (Tallulah Falls Railway Co. 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

Tallulah Falls Railway Co. v. Davis, 111 S.E. 444, 28 Ga. App. 365, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 520 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

This case was before this court once before, and is reported in 26 Ga. App. 215 (105 S. E. 712). The only special grounds of the motion for a new trial insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff' in error relates to the failure of the court to charge as requested, and the refusal to direct a verdict. The charge of the court, when read in its entirety, sufficiently covered the principle embraced in the request to charge; and, under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, it is never error to refuse to direct a verdict. A careful examination of the record discloses that the evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and for no reason'1 assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Broyles, C. J., disqualified.

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

Luke, J.

This case was before this court once before, and is reported in 26 Ga. App. 215 (105 S. E. 712). The only special grounds of the motion for a new trial insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff' in error relates to the failure of the court to charge as requested, and the refusal to direct a verdict. The charge of the court, when read in its entirety, sufficiently covered the principle embraced in the request to charge; and, under repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, it is never error to refuse to direct a verdict. A careful examination of the record discloses that the evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and for no reason'1 assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Broyles, C. J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 444, 28 Ga. App. 365, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tallulah-falls-railway-co-v-davis-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack