Waynesboro Planing Mill v. Hargrove
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBloodworth, J.
1. While there are slight inaccuracies of expression in some of the excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial, these inaccuracies, in the light of the entire charge, arc not such as likely misled the jury and caused them to return a verdict different from what would have been found had not these inaccuracies appeared. The excerpt from the charge embraced in the first special ground of the motion for a new trial is not subject to the exceptions taken. It wjis not necessary to .qualify the expression, “Should you believe from the testimonjr in this •…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co. v. ParsonsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
- Harris & Co. v. Vallee & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Alexander v. DeanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co. v. SummerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- McConnell v. SelphCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bennett v. Associated Food Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Autotax, Inc. v. Data Input Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Downey v. Spainhour Oil & Equipment Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1961