Askew v. Hogansville Cotton-Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Askew v. Hogansville Cotton-Oil Co.

55 S.E. 921, 126 Ga. 807, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 553

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 55 S.E. 921 (Askew v. Hogansville Cotton-Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Askew v. Hogansville Cotton-Oil Co., 55 S.E. 921, 126 Ga. 807, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 553 (Ga. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Eish, C. J.

1. Affidavits, documents, and records introduced in evidence, but not incorporated in an approved brief of evidence so as to become a part of the record, can not be properly specified as parts of the record, so as to authorize transcripts thereof to be transmitted to this court. Hancock v. McNatt, 116 Ga. 297; Sayer v. Brown, 119 Ga. 539.

2. Affidavits, documents, and records submitted in evidence on the hearing should be incorporated in the bill of exceptions to review a refusal of an interlocutory injunction, or be attached thereto as exhibits, duly and properly identified, or be embodied in an approved brief of evidence and brought up as part of the record. Where none of these methods is adopted, but copies of such affidavits and documents are sent up as parts of the record, for the reason that the originals have marked thereon the word “Identified,” followed by the signature of the trial judge, such affidavits and documents have not been brought to this court in the manner prescribed by law, and therefore they can not be considered. Eubank v. Eastman, 120 Ga. 1048; Roberts v. Heinsohn, 123 Ga. 685.

3. Applying the rules above announced to the present ease, wherein the only question made by the assignment of error necessarily involves a consideration of the evidence, no adjudication therein can be had, and the writ of error must, therefore, be dismissed.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Eish, C. J.

1. Affidavits, documents, and records introduced in evidence, but not incorporated in an approved brief of evidence so as to become a part of the record, can not be properly specified as parts of the record, so as to authorize transcripts thereof to be transmitted to this court. Hancock v. McNatt, 116 Ga. 297; Sayer v. Brown, 119 Ga. 539.

2. Affidavits, documents, and records submitted in evidence on the hearing should be incorporated in the bill of exceptions to review a refusal of an interlocutory injunction, or be attached thereto as exhibits, duly and properly identified, or be embodied in an approved brief of evidence and brought up as part of the record. Where none of these methods is adopted, but copies of such affidavits and documents are sent up as parts of the record, for the reason that the originals have marked thereon the word “Identified,” followed by the signature of the trial judge, such affidavits and documents have not been brought to this court in the manner prescribed by law, and therefore they can not be considered. Eubank v. Eastman, 120 Ga. 1048; Roberts v. Heinsohn, 123 Ga. 685.

3. Applying the rules above announced to the present ease, wherein the only question made by the assignment of error necessarily involves a consideration of the evidence, no adjudication therein can be had, and the writ of error must, therefore, be dismissed.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.E. 921, 126 Ga. 807, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/askew-v-hogansville-cotton-oil-co-ga-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack