Wight v. Schmidt

• Decision Date: 07 August 1900
• Citation: 36 S.E. 937,111 Ga. 858
• Parties: WIGHT et al. v. SCHMIDT.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

36 S.E. 937

111 Ga. 858

WIGHT et al. v. SCHMIDT.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 7, 1900

Syllabus by the Court.

1. No cause for reversing a judgment denying a new trial is presented: (1) By a general assignment of error that the verdict is contrary to the charge of the court, or to a specified portion thereof. See Manufacturing Co. v. Rucker, 4 S.E. 885, 80 Ga. 291, 295; Roberts v. Keller (decided at the present term), 36 S.E. 617. (2) Nor by a complaint merely alleging that the court erred in refusing, upon the request of movant, to rule out the testimony of a certain witness which related to a specified subject, such testimony not being otherwise indicated, and the ground upon which it was sought to be excluded not being stated. (3) Nor by an assignment of error in general terms upon a specified portion of the judge's charge, when the portion so excepted to states a sound proposition of law in the abstract, or when it embraces two or more distinct propositions, at least one of which is abstractly correct. Anderson v. Railway Co., 33 S.E. 644, 107 Ga. 500. (4) Nor by a general complaint that the court erred in refusing to admit in evidence a certain letter, there being no allegation that it was offered by the movant. See Ponder v. Walker, 33 S.E. 690, 107 Ga. 753.

2. The evidence, though conflicting, was amply sufficient to warrant the verdict.

Error from superior court, McIntosh county; Paul E. Seabrook, Judge.

Action between Wight & Wesloshy and A. Schmidt. From a judgment, and from an order denying a new trial, Wight & Wesloshy bring error. Affirmed.

D. H. Pope and Gignilliat & Stubbs, for plaintiffs in error.

Garrard & Meldrim, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed.