Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Callaway, McCarty & Gregory
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Federal Land Bank v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Ga. 1939)
- Gibson Products Co. of Albany, Inc. v. Addison (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)
- Wood v. Mobley (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
- Reed v. Peeples (Ga. 1964)
- Ritchie v. Barker (Ga. 1960)
- Wills v. Wills (Ga. 1959)
- Hovsepian v. Brown (Ga. Ct. App. 1957)
- Nail v. Nail (Ga. 1950)
- Conwell v. Price (Ga. Ct. App. 1943)
- Hughes v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1939)
- Vinson v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)
- Drew v. Drew (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
- Federal Life Insurance v. Hurst (Ga. Ct. App. 1931)
- Starke v. Hunt (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)
- Wilson v. Wilson (Ga. 1914)
- Ward v. Ward (Ga. 1910)
- Cureton v. Cureton (Ga. 1909)
- Lambert Hoisting Engine Co. v. Bray & Co. (Ga. 1907)
- Davis v. State (Ga. 1904)
- Blackburn v. Alabama Midland Railway Co. (Ga. 1903)
- Hyatt v. Cowan & Co. (Ga. 1902)
- Owen v. Palmour (Ga. 1902)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
1. When the time for filing in vacation a brief of evidence to accompany a motion for a new trial is expressly limited by an order of the court, and the brief is not filed within that time, it is not erroneous to dismiss the motion ; nor will this court reverse the action of the trial judge in refusing to accept as a sufficient excuse for not duly filing a brief of evidence the failure of the circuit stenographer, from' illness ‘or any other cause, to write out the evidence. Boatwright v. State, 91 Ga. 13 ; Eason v. Americus, 106 Ga. 179.
2. While a trial judge may, within the restrictions prescribed by the Civil Oodé, §5331," direct a verdict, this court will in no case overrule as erroneous a refusal to do so.
3. 'When a party against whom a verdict has been rendered, without moving for a new trial, sues out a direct bill of exceptions, he must, in order to obtain a reversal of the judgment, show not only that error was committed, but also that the adverse verdict was a necessary result thereof. There was at the trial of the present case no error, if any at all, of the nature above indicated. Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.