Wimbish v. Georgia Railway & Power Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wimbish v. Georgia Railway & Power Co.

105 S.E. 315, 26 Ga. App. 38, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 254

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 15, 1920

Docket11741

StatusPublished

This text of 105 S.E. 315 (Wimbish v. Georgia Railway & Power 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

Wimbish v. Georgia Railway & Power Co., 105 S.E. 315, 26 Ga. App. 38, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 254 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. All tlie grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are based upon alleged errors in the charge of the court, and are without substantial merit. The charge was a fair and substantially correct presentation of the controlling issues of the case, and, in the absence of any request for more particular instructions, was sufficiently full. None of the excerpts complained of, when considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, shows material error.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. All tlie grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are based upon alleged errors in the charge of the court, and are without substantial merit. The charge was a fair and substantially correct presentation of the controlling issues of the case, and, in the absence of any request for more particular instructions, was sufficiently full. None of the excerpts complained of, when considered in the light of the entire charge and the facts of the case, shows material error.

2. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.E. 315, 26 Ga. App. 38, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wimbish-v-georgia-railway-power-co-gactapp-1920.