Brown & Adams v. Weichselbaum Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brown & Adams v. Weichselbaum Co.

72 S.E. 176, 9 Ga. App. 728, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 310

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 23, 1911

Docket3203

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 S.E. 176 (Brown & Adams v. Weichselbaum Co.) 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

Brown & Adams v. Weichselbaum Co., 72 S.E. 176, 9 Ga. App. 728, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 310 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

I-Iill, C. J.

This case is here on a judgment overruling the motion for a new trial. The evidence on the trial of the case consisted of interrogatories and over fifty pages of documentary evidence, telegrams, letters, etc. Apparently the only effort to brief the evidence by interrogatories was simply by leaving out of the brief the questions, and leaving in all the parts of the answers, material and immaterial. No effort whatever was made to brief the documentary evidence, but all the letters and telegrams are incorporated in what purports to be the brief in extenso. The only questions raised depend entirely upon a consideration of 'the evidence. Under the express requirements of the Civil Code (1910), §§ 6140, 6141, and the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed. Cunningham v. Strom, 8 Ga. App. 87; Albany & Northern Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 6 Ga. App. 270 (64 S. E. 1114) ; Huntley Mfg. Co. v. Nixon Grocery Co., 6 Ga. App. 46 (64 S. E. 279), and cases there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

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

I-Iill, C. J.

This case is here on a judgment overruling the motion for a new trial. The evidence on the trial of the case consisted of interrogatories and over fifty pages of documentary evidence, telegrams, letters, etc. Apparently the only effort to brief the evidence by interrogatories was simply by leaving out of the brief the questions, and leaving in all the parts of the answers, material and immaterial. No effort whatever was made to brief the documentary evidence, but all the letters and telegrams are incorporated in what purports to be the brief in extenso. The only questions raised depend entirely upon a consideration of 'the evidence. Under the express requirements of the Civil Code (1910), §§ 6140, 6141, and the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court, the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed. Cunningham v. Strom, 8 Ga. App. 87; Albany & Northern Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 6 Ga. App. 270 (64 S. E. 1114) ; Huntley Mfg. Co. v. Nixon Grocery Co., 6 Ga. App. 46 (64 S. E. 279), and cases there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 176, 9 Ga. App. 728, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-adams-v-weichselbaum-co-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack