Allen v. Kessler
| Decision Date | 08 June 1904 |
| Citation | Allen v. Kessler, 120 Ga. 319, 47 S.E. 900 (Ga. 1904) |
| Parties | ALLEN . v. KESSLER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
NEW TRIAL—EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE.
1. The general rule is that, in order for the exclusion of oral evidence to be considered as a ground for a new trial, it must appear that a pertinent question was asked, that the court refused to allow the answer, and that a statement was made to the court at the time showing what the answer would be, and that such testimony was material and would have benefited the complaining party. Griffin v. Henderson, 43 S. E. 712, 117 Ga. 382, and citations. In view of this rule, neither of the grounds of the amended motion for a new trial properly presents any question for determination.
2. The verdict was warranted by the evidence. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Macon; Robt. Hodges, Judge.
Action between Amy Allen and Henry Kessler. From the judgment, Allen brings error. Affirmed.
Daley, Moore & Cochran, for plaintiff in error.
M. R. Freeman and Hardeman, Davis, Turner & Jones, for defendant in error.
FISH. P. J. Judgment...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Benn v. McBride
...which would have been elicited had no objection been made. Rainey v. Moon, 187 Ga. 712(12), 2 S.E.2d 405 (1939); Allen v. Kessler, 120 Ga. 319, 47 S.E. 900 (1904); Steverson v. Hosp. Auth. of Ware County, 129 Ga.App. 510(3), 199 S.E.2d 881 (1973); Borochoff Properties, Inc. v. Howard Lumber......
-
Carter v. Tatum
...119 Ga.App. 773, 168 S.E.2d 872. Accord, Borochoff Prop. v. Howard Lumber Co., 115 Ga.App. 691, 696, 155 S.E.2d 651, and Allen v. Kessler, 120 Ga. 319, 47 S.E. 900. 5. The general grounds of the motion for new trial are without 6. The judgment insofar as it was in favor of the third party d......
-
Council v. Teal
...it would have been beneficial or otherwise to the defendant. Such an indefinite assignment of error cannot be considered. Allen v. Kessler, 120 Ga. 319, 47 S.E. 900. After the jury had retired to make a verdict and had deliberated over the case for about four hours, they sent a request to t......