Mazzola v. Swift Mfg. Co., 132 S.E.2d 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963). · Go Syfert
Mazzola v. Swift Mfg. Co., 132 S.E.2d 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MAZZOLA
v.
SWIFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY
40309.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Sep 13, 1963.
Published opinion
132 S.E.2d 812
1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 622
Roberts & Thornton, for plaintiff in error., Hatcher, Stubbs, Land & Rothschild, Albert W. Stubbs, J. Madden Hatcher, Jr., contra.
Eberhardt.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Eberhardt, Judge.

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 SE2d 24); Hodges v. Gay, 100 Ga. App. 210 (110 SE2d 570); Beecher v. Farley, 104 Ga. App. 785 (123 SE2d 184); Pendry v. Addison, 105 Ga. App. 673 (1) (125 SE2d 523); Byck v. Lawton, 218 Ga. 858 (4) (131 SE2d 176). Accordingly, the judgment must be

Affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Bussell, J., concur.