Legal Opinion
Rome Builders Supply, Inc. v. Rome Kraft Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided September 28, 1961No. 39038PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Townsend, Presiding Judge.
1. Rulings on pleadings must be the subject of direct exception and cannot be considered as special grounds of a motion for a new trial. Bennett v. Patten, 148 Ga. 66 (3a) (95 SE 690); Redwine Bros. v. Street, 18 Ga. App. 77 (1) (89 SE 163). The first special ground of the motion for a new trial cannot be considered by this court.
2. Where a special ground of a motion for a new trial complains of the exclusion of evidence on objection to a question asked on direct examination, but fails to state the answer expected or show its relevancy to the movant’s case, it is too…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Southern Railway Co. v. HobbsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Steele v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Bohannon v. Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
- Bennett v. PattenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918
- Bowden v. BowdenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. LesterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Batson-Cook Co. v. Georgia Marble Setting Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Holmes v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2007
- Cash v. Street & Trail, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Insurance Co. of North America v. Gulf Oil Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.