Harrison v. Neel Gap Bus Line Inc.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtGtjerry, J.
1. “A direct bill of exceptions will lie to a ruling of a trial court directing a verdict.” Webb v. Hicks, 117 Ga. 335 (43 S. E. 738); Legere v. Blakely Gin Co., 11 Ga. App. 325 (75 S. E. 163). An assignment of error, contained in a bill of exceptions, as follows: “To the ruling of the court directing said verdict for the defendant, Neel Gap Bus Line, against plaintiff in error, plaintiff in error excepted, now excepts and assigns the same as error upon the ground "there were issues of fact to be tried under the pleadings and the evidence in said case that should have been determined by the…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Webb v. HicksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Bosworth v. NelsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
- Manning v. GettysCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
- Legere v. Blakely Gin Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cantrell v. ByarsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1942
- MODERN COACH CORPORATION v. FaverCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1952
- Clark v. Calhoun National BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Jobson v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936