Savannah & S. Ry. v. Davis
| Decision Date | 14 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 12972. |
| Citation | 112 S.E. 907,28 Ga.App. 654 |
| Parties | SAVANNAH & S. RY. v. DAVIS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
When considered in connection with all the facts of the case (including the amount of the verdict, $2,000) and the entire charge of the court, no error that would require the grant of a new trial appears in any of the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial.
The grounds of the motion which complain that the court refused to comply with certain written requests to charge cannot be considered by this court, for two reasons: (a) It does not appear that these requests were tendered to the court before the jury retired "to consider of their verdict." Civ. Code 1910, § 6084, Pen. Code, § 1087. (b) It is not alleged that the requests to charge were "pertinent and applicable to the facts of the case." Killabrew v. State, 26 Ga.App. 232 (2), 105 S.E. 711.
Special grounds 12 and 15 of the motion for a new trial are too indefinite to present any question for determination by this court.
The verdict being supported by evidence and approved by the trial judge, this court will not disturb it.
Error from Superior Court, Tattnall County; H. B. Strange, Judge.
Action by W. O. Davis, by his next friend, against Savannah & Southern Railway. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
J. P. Dukes, of Pembroke, for plaintiff in error.
Oliver & Oliver, of Savannah, for defendant in error.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trammell v. Shirley, (No. 19042.)
...Killabrew v. State, 26 Ga. App. 231 (2), 105 S. E. 711; Caswell v. State, 27 Ga. App. 76 (7), 107 S. E. 560; Savannah & C. Ry. v. Davis, 28 Ga. App. 654 (2), 112 S. E. 907; Monroe v. War-ten Cotton Co., 29 Ga. App. 358, 115 S. E. 279; Pulliam v. State, 30 Ga. App. 250 (3), 117 S. E. 822; Wa......
-
Trammell v. Shirley
... ... the case. Killabrew v. State, 26 Ga.App. 231 (2), ... 105 S.E. 711; Caswell v. State, 27 Ga.App. 76 (7), ... 107 S.E. 560; Savannah & C. Ry. v. Davis, 28 Ga.App ... 654 (2), 112 S.E. 907; Monroe v. Warten Cotton Co., ... 29 Ga.App. 358, 115 S.E. 279; Pulliam v. State, 30 ... ...
-
West Lumber Co. v. Schnuck
...pertinent and applicable to the facts of the case. Killabrew v. State, 26 Ga.App. 231, 232(2), 105 S.E. 711; Savannah & Southern Railway v. Davis, 28 Ga.App. 654(2b), 112 S.E. 907; Hightower v. State, 33 Ga.App. 73(1), 125 S.E. 511; Ward v. Gardner, 35 Ga.App. 569(2), 134 S.E. 9. Ground 14 ......
-
Bray v. C. I. T. Corp.
...were pertinent and applicable to the facts of the case. Hightower v. State, 33 Ga. App. 73, 125 S. E. 511; Savannah & S. Ry. v. Davis, 28 Ga. App. 654, 112 S. E. 907. 6. When admissions are made in pleadings and are withdrawn or stricken by amendment, they can be used by opposite party upon......