Legal Opinion

Cheves v. Hitz

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 9, 1929No. 19466PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBloodworti-i, J.

1. So far as legal and pertinent, the request to charge set forth in the motion for a new trial was covered by the charge given; and the refusal to give the requested instructions to the jury was not error. Bryan v. Moncrief Furnace Co., 38 Ga. App. 107 (3) (142 S. E. 700); Miles v. Foy, 38 Ga. App. 473 (3) (144 S. E. 802). Moreover, this ground of the motion need not be considered by this court. It is well settled by repeated rulings of this and the Supreme Court that each ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete and understandable without reference to any other part of the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Holmes v. ClisbySupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  2. Pickens v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
  3. Jackson v. ReevesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
  4. Macon Railway & Light Co. v. BarnesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  5. Cherry v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Southern Railway Co. v. SlatonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
  2. Williamson, Inman & Co. v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API