Brazil v. City or LaGrange
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBroyles, C. J.
3. The grounds of the motion for a new trial which complain of the refusal of certain requests to charge are not complete and understandable within themselves, as none of them show or even allege that the requested instructions were adapted to the facts of the case or were authorized by any evidence adduced. Beavers v. State, 33 Ga. App. 370 (2) (126 S. E. 305); Sandersville R. Co. v. McDaniel, 37 Ga. App. 34 (138 S. E. 584).
2. Grounds 7 and 8, which complain of the admission of certain alleged material evidence, are not complete and understandable within themselves. It is impossible for this…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Beavers v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- Sandersville Railroad v. McDanielCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927
3Cited by8 opinions
- Cherry v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
- Camilla Cotton-Oil Co. v. CawleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Wardlaw v. WardlawCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Cronic v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
- Ellison v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.