way defense in Georgia

2026Thus, the trial court did not err in denying Murphy’s motion. 9 See id. (holding that a motion for a directed verdict was not the appropriate way to challenge an indictment that was allegedly 9 At trial, Murphy’s counsel also moved for a directed verdict as to Count 4 of the indictment because “there is insufficient evidence.” On appeal, however, Murphy challenges only the trial court’s denial of his motion because the indictment fails “to adequately inform Murphy of the nature of the charge against him.” Thus, we decline to address whether the trial court erred by denying Murphy’s motion for

2026Thus, the trial court did not err in denying Murphy’s motion. 9 See id. (holding that a motion for a directed verdict was not the appropriate way to challenge an indictment that was allegedly 9 At trial, Murphy’s counsel also moved for a directed verdict as to Count 4 of the indictment because “there is insufficient evidence.” On appeal, however, Murphy challenges only the trial court’s denial of his motion because the indictment fails “to adequately inform Murphy of the nature of the charge against him.” Thus, we decline to address whether the trial court erred by denying Murphy’s motion for

2003Head v. Carr, supra, 273 Ga. at 616 , 544 S.E.2d 409 .

2003Head v. Carr, supra, 273 Ga. at 616 , 544 S.E.2d 409 .

1991As we have recently held in Griggs v. All-Steel Bldgs., 201 Ga. App. 111 ( 410 SE2d 309 ) (1991), the proper way to challenge an award of the Board on the basis that the award was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is to bring a motion to set aside pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) in the superior court.

1991As we have recently held in Griggs v. All-Steel Bldgs., 201 Ga. App. 111 ( 410 SE2d 309 ) (1991), the proper way to challenge an award of the Board on the basis that the award was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is to bring a motion to set aside pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) in the superior court.

1986But the balance of interest tips decidedly the other way when an error has had no effect on the outcome of the trial." Id. at 4169 .

1986But the balance of interest tips decidedly the other way when an error has had no effect on the outcome of the trial.” Id. at 4169 .

1933In Bryan v. Moncrief Furnace Co., supra, Howell v. Howell, 59 Ga. 148 , and Justices v. Griffin & West Point Plank Road Co., 15 Ga. 39, 41 , there was a proper challenge made to the poll in such a way as to challenge all the jurors, and each particular one of the twenty-four jurors on the panel, just as if each juror had been challenged separately; and in those cases the court held that the denial of the right to have the list purged was such error as demanded the grant of a new trial.

1918Absolutely nothing in the way of defense is presented by the following allegations of the plea: “That at the time the said goods were shipped the Show Case Company sent the notes sued on to the First National Bank, and defendant had to sign same and pay the amounts named in original plea before he could inspect said goods; that said agent represented to said defendant that the notes would follow the terms of the contract, and defendant, also relying on said representations of agent, signed said notes, and that he did not have an opportunity of fully examining said notes.” (b) In the plea there

1918Absolutely nothing in the way of defense is presented by the following allegations of the plea: “That at the time the said goods were shipped the Show Case Company sent the notes sued on to the First National Bank, and defendant had to sign same and pay the amounts named in original plea before he could inspect said goods; that said agent represented to said defendant that the notes would follow the terms of the contract, and defendant, also relying on said representations of agent, signed said notes, and that he did not have an opportunity of fully examining said notes.” (b) In the plea there

1918Absolutely nothing in the way of defense is presented by the following allegations of the plea: “That at the time the said goods were shipped the Show Case Company sent the notes sued on to the First National Bank, and defendant had to sign same and pay the amounts named in original plea before he could inspect said goods; that said agent represented to said defendant that the notes would follow the terms of the contract, and defendant, also relying on said representations of agent, signed said notes, and that he did not have an opportunity of fully examining said notes.” (b) In the plea there

1918Absolutely nothing in the way of defense is presented by the following allegations of the plea: “That at the time the said goods were shipped the Show Case Company sent the notes sued on to the First National Bank, and defendant had to sign same and pay the amounts named in original plea before he could inspect said goods; that said agent represented to said defendant that the notes would follow the terms of the contract, and defendant, also relying on said representations of agent, signed said notes, and that he did not have an opportunity of fully examining said notes.” (b) In the plea there

1918Absolutely nothing in the way of defense is presented by the following allegations of the plea: “That at the time the said goods were shipped the Show Case Company sent the notes sued on to the First National Bank, and defendant had to sign same and pay the amounts named in original plea before he could inspect said goods; that said agent represented to said defendant that the notes would follow the terms of the contract, and defendant, also relying on said representations of agent, signed said notes, and that he did not have an opportunity of fully examining said notes.” (b) In the plea there

1918Absolutely nothing in the way of defense is presented by the following allegations of the plea: “That at the time the said goods were shipped the Show Case Company sent the notes sued on to the First National Bank, and defendant had to sign same and pay the amounts named in original plea before he could inspect said goods; that said agent represented to said defendant that the notes would follow the terms of the contract, and defendant, also relying on said representations of agent, signed said notes, and that he did not have an opportunity of fully examining said notes.” (b) In the plea there

1918Absolutely nothing in the way of defense is presented by the following allegations of the plea: “That at the time the said goods were shipped the Show Case Company sent the notes sued on to the First National Bank, and defendant had to sign same and pay the amounts named in original plea before he could inspect said goods; that said agent represented to said defendant that the notes would follow the terms of the contract, and defendant, also relying on said representations of agent, signed said notes, and that he did not have an opportunity of fully examining said notes.” (b) In the plea there

1918Absolutely nothing in the way of defense is presented by the following allegations of the plea: “That at the time the said goods were shipped the Show Case Company sent the notes sued on to the First National Bank, and defendant had to sign same and pay the amounts named in original plea before he could inspect said goods; that said agent represented to said defendant that the notes would follow the terms of the contract, and defendant, also relying on said representations of agent, signed said notes, and that he did not have an opportunity of fully examining said notes.” (b) In the plea there

1918Absolutely nothing in the way of defense is presented by the following allegations of the plea: “That at the time the said goods were shipped the Show Case Company sent the notes sued on to the First National Bank, and defendant had to sign same and pay the amounts named in original plea before he could inspect said goods; that said agent represented to said defendant that the notes would follow the terms of the contract, and defendant, also relying on said representations of agent, signed said notes, and that he did not have an opportunity of fully examining said notes.” (b) In the plea there

1913Fargason v. Ford, 119 Ga. 343 ( 46 S. E. 431 ); Evans v. Josephine Mills, 119 Ga. 448 ( 46 S. E. 674 ); Box v. Atlantic & Birmingham Railroad Co., 120 Ga. 1050 ( 48 S. E. 427 ); Murphy v. Davis, 122 Ga. 306 ( 50 S. E. 99 ), The usual way to test the sufficiency of pleading is - either by a demurrer filed at the appearance term, or a motion to dismiss, filed after the appearance term, upon the ground that the pleading is bad in substance.

1913Fargason v. Ford, 119 Ga. 343 ( 46 S. E. 431 ); Evans v. Josephine Mills, 119 Ga. 448 ( 46 S. E. 674 ); Box v. Atlantic & Birmingham Railroad Co., 120 Ga. 1050 ( 48 S. E. 427 ); Murphy v. Davis, 122 Ga. 306 ( 50 S. E. 99 ), The usual way to test the sufficiency of pleading is - either by a demurrer filed at the appearance term, or a motion to dismiss, filed after the appearance term, upon the ground that the pleading is bad in substance.

1913Fargason v. Ford, 119 Ga. 343 ( 46 S. E. 431 ); Evans v. Josephine Mills, 119 Ga. 448 ( 46 S. E. 674 ); Box v. Atlantic & Birmingham Railroad Co., 120 Ga. 1050 ( 48 S. E. 427 ); Murphy v. Davis, 122 Ga. 306 ( 50 S. E. 99 ), The usual way to test the sufficiency of pleading is - either by a demurrer filed at the appearance term, or a motion to dismiss, filed after the appearance term, upon the ground that the pleading is bad in substance.

1913Fargason v. Ford, 119 Ga. 343 ( 46 S. E. 431 ); Evans v. Josephine Mills, 119 Ga. 448 ( 46 S. E. 674 ); Box v. Atlantic & Birmingham Railroad Co., 120 Ga. 1050 ( 48 S. E. 427 ); Murphy v. Davis, 122 Ga. 306 ( 50 S. E. 99 ), The usual way to test the sufficiency of pleading is - either by a demurrer filed at the appearance term, or a motion to dismiss, filed after the appearance term, upon the ground that the pleading is bad in substance.

1913Fargason v. Ford, 119 Ga. 343 ( 46 S. E. 431 ); Evans v. Josephine Mills, 119 Ga. 448 ( 46 S. E. 674 ); Box v. Atlantic & Birmingham Railroad Co., 120 Ga. 1050 ( 48 S. E. 427 ); Murphy v. Davis, 122 Ga. 306 ( 50 S. E. 99 ), The usual way to test the sufficiency of pleading is - either by a demurrer filed at the appearance term, or a motion to dismiss, filed after the appearance term, upon the ground that the pleading is bad in substance.

1913Fargason v. Ford, 119 Ga. 343 ( 46 S. E. 431 ); Evans v. Josephine Mills, 119 Ga. 448 ( 46 S. E. 674 ); Box v. Atlantic & Birmingham Railroad Co., 120 Ga. 1050 ( 48 S. E. 427 ); Murphy v. Davis, 122 Ga. 306 ( 50 S. E. 99 ), The usual way to test the sufficiency of pleading is - either by a demurrer filed at the appearance term, or a motion to dismiss, filed after the appearance term, upon the ground that the pleading is bad in substance.

1913Fargason v. Ford, 119 Ga. 343 ( 46 S. E. 431 ); Evans v. Josephine Mills, 119 Ga. 448 ( 46 S. E. 674 ); Box v. Atlantic & Birmingham Railroad Co., 120 Ga. 1050 ( 48 S. E. 427 ); Murphy v. Davis, 122 Ga. 306 ( 50 S. E. 99 ), The usual way to test the sufficiency of pleading is - either by a demurrer filed at the appearance term, or a motion to dismiss, filed after the appearance term, upon the ground that the pleading is bad in substance.

1913Fargason v. Ford, 119 Ga. 343 ( 46 S. E. 431 ); Evans v. Josephine Mills, 119 Ga. 448 ( 46 S. E. 674 ); Box v. Atlantic & Birmingham Railroad Co., 120 Ga. 1050 ( 48 S. E. 427 ); Murphy v. Davis, 122 Ga. 306 ( 50 S. E. 99 ), The usual way to test the sufficiency of pleading is - either by a demurrer filed at the appearance term, or a motion to dismiss, filed after the appearance term, upon the ground that the pleading is bad in substance.