Autry, House & Co. v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Autry, House & Co. v. Smith

125 S.E. 384, 33 Ga. App. 47, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 708

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 12, 1924

Docket15774

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 S.E. 384 (Autry, House & Co. v. Smith) 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

Autry, House & Co. v. Smith, 125 S.E. 384, 33 Ga. App. 47, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 708 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

“There can be no legal verdict in favor of the plaintiff in execution in a claim case unless there is introduced in evidence at the trial a valid, unsatisfied execution in favor of the plaintiff in execution against the defendant in execution.” Collins v. Hill, 115 Ga. 465 (1) (41 S. E. 678).

(a) In the instant case, while the bill o.f exceptions specifies the execution as a part of the record material to a clear understanding of the errors complained of, and while the execution is copied in the rqcoi'd transmitted to this court, it does not appear that it was actually introduced in evidence; or that it was referred to in connection with any other documentary evidence in the case. Therefore, under the ruling in .the Collins ease, supra, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff in execution was unauthorized, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. See also, in this connection, Blackstock v. Blackman, 152 Ga. 179 (2) (108 S. E. 775).

Judgment reversed.

Luke mid Blood/worth, JJ., concur. G. A. Johns, J. C. Pratt, for plaintiff in error. W. IJ. Quarterman, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

“There can be no legal verdict in favor of the plaintiff in execution in a claim case unless there is introduced in evidence at the trial a valid, unsatisfied execution in favor of the plaintiff in execution against the defendant in execution.” Collins v. Hill, 115 Ga. 465 (1) (41 S. E. 678).

(a) In the instant case, while the bill o.f exceptions specifies the execution as a part of the record material to a clear understanding of the errors complained of, and while the execution is copied in the rqcoi'd transmitted to this court, it does not appear that it was actually introduced in evidence; or that it was referred to in connection with any other documentary evidence in the case. Therefore, under the ruling in .the Collins ease, supra, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff in execution was unauthorized, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. See also, in this connection, Blackstock v. Blackman, 152 Ga. 179 (2) (108 S. E. 775).

Judgment reversed.

Luke mid Blood/worth, JJ., concur. G. A. Johns, J. C. Pratt, for plaintiff in error. W. IJ. Quarterman, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E. 384, 33 Ga. App. 47, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/autry-house-co-v-smith-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack