Legal Opinion

Anthony v. Wingfield

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 7, 1915No. 5927PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Complaint; from city court of Washington — Judge Wynne. July 11, 1914.

1Opinion of the CourtBroyles, J.

Where the grounds of a motion for a new trial are dependent upon a consideration of the evidence, and a brief of the evidence has not been prepared in even substantial compliance with section 6093 of the Civil Code, this court will not attempt to review the discretion of the trial judge in overruling such grounds. Grier v. Brown, 118 Ga. 670 (45 S. E. 455); Wall v. Mercer, 119 Ga. 346 (46 S. E. 420); Gairdner v. Tate, 121 Ga. 253 (48 S. E. 907); Whitaker v. State, 138 Ga. 139 (75 S. E. 254); Albany &c. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 6 Ga. App. 270 (64 S. E. 1114). Judgment affirmed.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Whitaker v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
  2. Albany & Northern Railway Co. v. WheelerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
  3. Wall v. MercerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  4. Gairdner v. TateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  5. Grier v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Jones v. Knightstown Body Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1936