Adams v. Black

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Adams v. Black

120 S.E. 693, 31 Ga. App. 424, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 969

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 10, 1923

Docket14542

StatusPublished

This text of 120 S.E. 693 (Adams v. Black) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Black, 120 S.E. 693, 31 Ga. App. 424, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 969 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

Where a cause involving both questions of law and of fact is adjudicated by the judge upon an agreed statement of facts, without the intervention of a jury, a general assignment of error upon the judgment which fails to specify how or wherein the trial judge erred, whether as to matter of law or matter of fact, cannot be taken as the foundation of a reversal. This was a claim case submitted by consent to the judge, upon an agreed statement of facts, without a jury. To his judgment in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa. the claimant has sued [425]*425out a bill of exceptions, in which the only assignment is as follows: “To this judgment of the court plaintiff in error excepted and now excepts, and' assigns. error thereon, and says that the court erred in his judgment finding the property subject to the fi. fa., and ordering said fi. fa. to proceed.” Held, the assignment is too general, and the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the bill of exceptions must be sustained. Adams v. May, 145 Ga. 234 (88 S. E. 928); Horkan v. City of Moultrie, 145 Ga. 588 (89 S. E. 681).

Decided December 10, 1923. Raymond Robinson, for plaintiff in error. Beall & Smith, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bell, J.

Where a cause involving both questions of law and of fact is adjudicated by the judge upon an agreed statement of facts, without the intervention of a jury, a general assignment of error upon the judgment which fails to specify how or wherein the trial judge erred, whether as to matter of law or matter of fact, cannot be taken as the foundation of a reversal. This was a claim case submitted by consent to the judge, upon an agreed statement of facts, without a jury. To his judgment in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa. the claimant has sued [425]*425out a bill of exceptions, in which the only assignment is as follows: “To this judgment of the court plaintiff in error excepted and now excepts, and' assigns. error thereon, and says that the court erred in his judgment finding the property subject to the fi. fa., and ordering said fi. fa. to proceed.” Held, the assignment is too general, and the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the bill of exceptions must be sustained. Adams v. May, 145 Ga. 234 (88 S. E. 928); Horkan v. City of Moultrie, 145 Ga. 588 (89 S. E. 681).

Decided December 10, 1923. Raymond Robinson, for plaintiff in error. Beall & Smith, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.E. 693, 31 Ga. App. 424, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-black-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack