Legal Opinion

City of LaGrange v. Cotter

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 14, 1923No. 13614PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

1. An assignment of error in a motion for new trial which fails to give the name of the witness the exclusion of whose testimony is complained of therein is insufficient in form and cannot be considered. The assignment must also disclose by whom the witness was offered. The reasons for this rule aré stated in Sims v. Sims, 131 Ga. 262 (62 S. E. 192). See also Mutual Canning Co. v. DeGuenther, 23 Ga. App. 746 (3) (99 S. E. 319).

2. Where error is assigned upon the exclusion of evidence, the materiality of which must depend upon additional evidence not shown in the assignment, the assignment of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Sims v. SimsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  2. City of Atlanta v. MilamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
  3. Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Jaques & Tinsley Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
  4. Wall v. Hawker Pottery Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
  5. Corona v. DeLaval Separator Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1920

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Trammell v. ShirleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
  2. Price v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
  3. Allen v. ArthursCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
  4. Townsend v. HamesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
  5. Carswell, Moxley & Son v. HarrisonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924

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

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

Powered by the Exa API