Johnson v. Ware
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Atkinson, J.
1. A ground of a motion for new trial which complains of a ruling under which certain evidence was., admitted, But which fails to disclose what objection, if any, was interposed to its admissibility at *366 tlie time it was offered, can not be considered. Smith v. Smith, 133 Ga. 170 (3) ( 65 S. E. 414 ).
November 18, 1910. Action, for penalty. Before Judge Littlejohn. Stewart superior court. December 27, 1909. W. H. Gurr and E. T. Hickey, for plaintiff in error.
2. An attack upon a statute as unconstitutional, made for the first time in the brief of counsel in the Supreme Court, will not be considered. In this connection see Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co. v. Hardin, 110 Ga. 433 ( 35 S. E. 681 ).
3. The evidence was conflicting, but sufficient to support the verdict; and there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.'
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.