Legal Opinion

Aspinwall v. Holland

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 10, 1929No. 19210PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

Upon an examination of the charge of-the court as it appears of record, it appears therefrom that the court fully and correctly charged the principles of law which in the motion for a new trial the plaintiff alleges the court'failed to charge. The grounds of the motion containing these exceptions are therefore not true in fact. The approved charge of the court must be taken as evidence as to what the court charged, rather than the grounds contained in the motion for a new trial, although the grounds of the motion are approved by the court. Fruit Dispatch…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fruit Dispatch Co. v. Roughton-Halliburton Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
  2. McCaulla v. MurphySupreme Court of Georgia · 1890
  3. Winkles v. Guenther & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1896
  4. Simpson v. WickerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  5. Groover v. WilkesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1919

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Barringer v. Dinkler Hotels Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1932
  2. Searles v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
  3. Bolton v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API