Lenox Drug Co. v. New England Jewelry Co.

Lenox Drug Co. v. New England Jewelry Co., 85 S.E. 681 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915)

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided: June 25, 1915
Docket: No. 6053
Judges: Broyles
Citations: 85 S.E. 68116 Ga. App. 4761915 Ga. App. LEXIS 90

Cited by 7

Summary

Complaint; from city court of Nashville — Judge Christian. October 12, 1914.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Broyles

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Broyles, J.

1. While the construction of a written contract is a duty for the court to perform, a new trial will not be granted where the court submits the contract to the jury and it is properly construed by them. Main v. Simmons, 2 Ga. App. 821 ( 59 S. E. 85 ). In this case we think the jury properly construed the contract.

2. The defendant, having pleaded an express warranty, will not be heard to complain that the court charged upon this subject.

3. The other instruction complained of, when considered in connection with the entire charge and the evidence in the ease, contains no error.

*477 Decided June 25, 1915. Complaint; from city court of Nashville — Judge Christian. October 12, 1914. William Story, for plaintiff in error. Hendricks & Hendricks, contra.

4. The 4th ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, complaining that the court failed to give certain instructions, is without merit, as the trial judge certifies that no written request therefor was submitted to him.

5. The remarks of counsel for the plaintiff in his argument to the jury, to which exception is taken, were improper, not warranted by the evidence, and perhaps prejudicial to the defendant, but counsel for the defendant did not then and there invoke a ruling thereon. He should either have made a motion for a mistrial or have requested the court to charge the jury that they should disregard the argument. He did neither the one nor the other, and, by failing to do so, waived his right, and could not make the improper argument a ground of his motion for a new trial. Satterfield v. Ayers, 10 Ga. App. 742 ( 73 S. E. 1091 ); Georgia Railway &o. Co. v. Dougherty, 4 Ga. App. 614 ( 62 S. E. 158 ).

6. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Hart v. State179 S.E.2d 346 (Ga. 1971)
McCoy v. Scarborough37 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. Ct. App. 1946)
Saxon v. Toland152 S.E.2d 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
Jefferson Ins. Co. of New York v. Dunn482 S.E.2d 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)
Southern Railway Co. v. Ray113 S.E. 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922)
Ware v. Lamar90 S.E. 364 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916)

Most recent

Jefferson Ins. Co. of New York v. Dunn482 S.E.2d 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)
Hart v. State179 S.E.2d 346 (Ga. 1971)
Saxon v. Toland152 S.E.2d 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
McCoy v. Scarborough37 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. Ct. App. 1946)
Southern Railway Co. v. Ray113 S.E. 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922)
Dumas v. Stafford & Son95 S.E. 1009 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918)

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.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Ga. Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Dougherty, 62 S.E. 158 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908)	8
	Main v. Simmons, 59 S.E. 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 1907)	6
	Satterfield v. Ayers, 73 S.E. 1091 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912)	6

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list