Avery & Co. v. Sorrell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Avery & Co. v. Sorrell

122 S.E. 638, 32 Ga. App. 41, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 244

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1924

Docket13745

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 S.E. 638 (Avery & Co. v. Sorrell) 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

Avery & Co. v. Sorrell, 122 S.E. 638, 32 Ga. App. 41, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 244 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The 1st, 2d and 3d headnotes are in the language of the Supreme Court, and are the answers given to questions certified by this court. Eor the full opinion of the Supreme Court, see 157 Ga. 476 (121 S. E. 828). It is necessary only to add that the principle announced in headnote 3 disposes of the questions raised by the exceptions pendente lite and grounds 5, 6, and 8 of the motion for a new trial, and of one of the contentions in ground 7 of the motion, adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error, and that there is no. merit in the additional contention in ground 7 that certain evidence was admitted over the objection of defendant that “the foreclosure papers testified about by said witness would be the highest and best evidence.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The 1st, 2d and 3d headnotes are in the language of the Supreme Court, and are the answers given to questions certified by this court. Eor the full opinion of the Supreme Court, see 157 Ga. 476 (121 S. E. 828). It is necessary only to add that the principle announced in headnote 3 disposes of the questions raised by the exceptions pendente lite and grounds 5, 6, and 8 of the motion for a new trial, and of one of the contentions in ground 7 of the motion, adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error, and that there is no. merit in the additional contention in ground 7 that certain evidence was admitted over the objection of defendant that “the foreclosure papers testified about by said witness would be the highest and best evidence.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 638, 32 Ga. App. 41, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avery-co-v-sorrell-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack