21 Ga. App. 653
Decided January 22, 1918
Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1918-01-22
<p>Action for damages; from Pike superior court — Judge Searcy. July 21, 1917. .</p> <p>The error assigned in the bill of exceptions is the overruling of a motion for a new trial, the grounds of which are not stated. The motion for a new trial was not sent up, and was not specified as a part of the record material to an understanding of the ease.</p>
Relies on Dickenson v. Stults · 5 Ga. App. 254 - Arnold v. Ragan
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1918-01-22
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1971
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶11. No assignment of error having been made upon the direction of a verdict in this case, the Court of Appeals has no authority to decide whether the trial judge erred in so directing. Dickenson v. Stults, 120 Ga. 632 (48 S. E. 173); Arnold v. Ragan, 5 Ga. App. 254 (62 S. E. 1052).
¶22. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the judgment refusing to grant a new trial must be
¶3 Affirmed.