Legal Opinion

Milam v. Gray

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 4, 1949No. 32744PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) In ground two of the amended motion for a new trial it is contended by the defendant that the court erred in charging the jury that “the plaintiff sets up in his petition” certain facts which appeared from the evidence of the case rather than in the body of the pleadings, and that he included in his recital the following: “that it subsequently developed that there was a mortgage on the car of the defendant, the mortgage on the car was foreclosed and the car seized.” This charge is objected to on the ground that the recital of the transaction does not…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Barnett v. SpeirSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
  2. Dunn v. BeasleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1915
  3. Fudge v. KellyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  4. Daughtry v. Georgia Power CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
  5. Johnson v. FulfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lanier Home Center, Inc. v. UnderwoodCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2001
  2. Williams v. Dienes Apparatus, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1991
  3. Rumph v. RisterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955

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

Powered by the Exa API