Hawkes Co. v. Cowart Co.
Hawkes Company v. Cowart Company
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.
Bloodworth, J.
1. Under -repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court of our State, “No ground of a motion for new trial which is not complete and understandable without resorting to an examination of the brief of evidence or the charge of the court will be considered as presenting a question for consideration by this court.” Southern Railway Co. v. Williams, 19 Ga. App. 545 (91 S. E. 1001 ); Head v. State, 144 Ga. 383 ( 87 S. E. 273 ); Smiley v. Smiley, 144 Ga. 546 ( 87 S. E. 668 ). In the instant ease each special ground of the motion for new trial refers, to a certain written contract, but this contract is not set out either literally or in substance in any of. Said grounds; and therefore they present no question for determination by this court.
2. “Grounds of the motion for a new trial which complain that the court erred in admitting certain evidence over the objections of the defendant’s counsel, but which fail to state what objection was made at the time it was offered, can not be considered by this court. Clarke v. State, 90 Ga. 448 ( 16 S. E. 96 ); Dutton v. State, 92 Ga. 14 (2), 15 ( 18 S. E. 545 ) ; Stevens v. State, 93 Ga. 307 (4) ( 20 S. E. 331 ); Huff v. State, 85 Ga. 336 (2), 340 ( 11 S. E. 619 ) ; Griffin v. State, 86 Ga. 257 ( 12 S. E. 409 ) ; Robertson v. State, 87 Ga. 209 (2), 214 ( 13 S. E. 696 ).” Cooner v. State, 16 Ga. App. 539 ( 85 S. E. 688 ).
3. There was evidence to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, P. J., and Harwell,, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 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.