From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mazzola v. Swift Manufacturing Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 13, 1963
132 S.E.2d 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)

Opinion

40309.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 13, 1963.

Appellate procedure. Columbus City Court. Before Judge Smith.

Roberts Thornton, for plaintiff in error.

Hatcher, Stubbs, Land Rothschild, Albert W. Stubbs, J. Madden Hatcher, Jr., contra.


Excepting to a judgment overruling his amended motion for new trial, plaintiff in error has abandoned the general grounds, but insists upon the special grounds all of which complain of the failure of the court to charge certain principles of law. In none of them is set forth the pleadings or the evidence supporting the charges which it is contended the court should have given, nor is there pointed out where in the record these are to be found. Thus no question is presented for decision. Hardwick v. Georgia Power Co., 100 Ga. App. 38 (5) ( 110 S.E.2d 24); Hodges v. Gay, 100 Ga. App. 210 ( 110 S.E.2d 570); Beecher v. Farley, 104 Ga. App. 785 ( 123 S.E.2d 184); Pendry v. Addison, 105 Ga. App. 673 (1) ( 125 S.E.2d 523); Byck v. Lawton, 218 Ga. 858 (4) ( 131 S.E.2d 176). Accordingly, the judgment must be

Affirmed. Felton, C. J., and Russell, J., concur.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 13, 1963.


Summaries of

Mazzola v. Swift Manufacturing Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 13, 1963
132 S.E.2d 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)
Case details for

Mazzola v. Swift Manufacturing Company

Case Details

Full title:MAZZOLA v. SWIFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 13, 1963

Citations

132 S.E.2d 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)
132 S.E.2d 812

Citing Cases

Attaway v. Morris

The contention of the plaintiff that the report was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule for the…

Fowler v. Aldridge

This ground is subject to a number of infirmities, one of which is the failure to specify in any way the…