Bryant v. Anderson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bryant v. Anderson

63 S.E. 638, 5 Ga. App. 517, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 50

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 9, 1909

Docket1136

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 S.E. 638 (Bryant v. Anderson) 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

Bryant v. Anderson, 63 S.E. 638, 5 Ga. App. 517, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 50 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. In order that a defendant in error may assign error upon rulings made adversely to him pending the progress of the ease, he should file a cross-bill of exceptions. The proceeding authorized by the act of August 22, 1905 (Georgia Laws 1905, p. 84)¡ whereby the bill of exceptions may be amended in the interest of developing the whole truth of the ease, is in no sense a cross-bill of exceptions.

2. The questions asked by the trial judge of the plaintiff while he was on the stand as a witness were of such a nature as to intimate an opinion on the part of the judge as to the truth of a material disputed issue of fact in the ease. This is a violation of section 4334 of the Civil Code, and is reversible error. Sharpton v. State, 1 Ga. App. 542 (57 S. E. 929) ; Rouse v. State, 2 Ga. App. 184 (58 S. E. 416).

Judgment reversed.

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

Powell, J.

1. In order that a defendant in error may assign error upon rulings made adversely to him pending the progress of the ease, he should file a cross-bill of exceptions. The proceeding authorized by the act of August 22, 1905 (Georgia Laws 1905, p. 84)¡ whereby the bill of exceptions may be amended in the interest of developing the whole truth of the ease, is in no sense a cross-bill of exceptions.

2. The questions asked by the trial judge of the plaintiff while he was on the stand as a witness were of such a nature as to intimate an opinion on the part of the judge as to the truth of a material disputed issue of fact in the ease. This is a violation of section 4334 of the Civil Code, and is reversible error. Sharpton v. State, 1 Ga. App. 542 (57 S. E. 929) ; Rouse v. State, 2 Ga. App. 184 (58 S. E. 416).

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 S.E. 638, 5 Ga. App. 517, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-anderson-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack