Legal Opinion

Mills v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 19, 1948No. 16118PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Candler, Justice.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Before he would approve the brief of evidence in the present case, and over the objection of the movant’s counsel that it had no place in the brief and related to a ruling adverse to the plaintiffs in the trial court, which they should have excepted to and urged by cross-bill, the judge on motion of the plaintiffs’ counsel, required the movant to incorporate this statement in the brief of evidence: “At the conclusion of the evidence, the court stated to counsel that it had prepared a list of questions to submit to the jury and would ask…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Tietjen v. MeldrimSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
  2. Brown v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1880
  3. Barham v. GrantSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  4. First National Bank v. American Sugar Refining Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  5. Hall v. BrowningSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Owens Hardware Co. v. WaltersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1954
  2. Mills v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1951
  3. Hancock v. MoriaritySupreme Court of Georgia · 1959
  4. Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1958
  5. Owens Hardware Co. v. WaltersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API