Brown v. Goodrich Rubber Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brown v. Goodrich Rubber Co.

114 S.E. 919, 29 Ga. App. 262, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 222

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1922

Docket13775

StatusPublished

This text of 114 S.E. 919 (Brown v. Goodrich Rubber 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 v. Goodrich Rubber Co., 114 S.E. 919, 29 Ga. App. 262, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 222 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

This ease arose upon an affidavit of illegality filed to arrest the proceeding of an execution. The ground of the affidavit was that the affiant had not been served with process or waived service in the suit on which the execution was based. A traverse to the sheriff’s return of service was filed, but was stricken; and there is no exception to the judgment striking the traverse. The only exception taken in the bill of exceptions is to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, based upon the general grounds only. The evidence (the sheriff’s return of service)' demanded a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa., and the court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

This ease arose upon an affidavit of illegality filed to arrest the proceeding of an execution. The ground of the affidavit was that the affiant had not been served with process or waived service in the suit on which the execution was based. A traverse to the sheriff’s return of service was filed, but was stricken; and there is no exception to the judgment striking the traverse. The only exception taken in the bill of exceptions is to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, based upon the general grounds only. The evidence (the sheriff’s return of service)' demanded a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in fi. fa., and the court properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.E. 919, 29 Ga. App. 262, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-goodrich-rubber-co-gactapp-1922.