Carter v. LANGDALE COMPANY

Supreme Court of Georgia

Carter v. LANGDALE COMPANY

125 S.E.2d 487, 217 Ga. 800, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 395

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 20, 1962

Docket21609

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 125 S.E.2d 487 (Carter v. LANGDALE COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. LANGDALE COMPANY, 125 S.E.2d 487, 217 Ga. 800, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 395 (Ga. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Candler, Justice.

In the instant case, each of the parties moved for a summary judgment after they had introduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The trial judge found and held that the pleadings and the evidence showed no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the defendant was entitled to a judgment in its favor as a matter of law; and such a judgment was accordingly granted. The *801 bill of exceptions contains two assignments of error. One complains about the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to strike a portion of the defendant’s answer, the exception to> which is as follows: “. . . to which ruling plaintiff excepted, now excepts and assigns the same as error.” The other complains about the order granting a summary judgment in defendant’s favor, the exception to which is as follows: “. . . to which judgment plaintiff excepted, now excepts and assigns same as error.” Under numerous decisions of this court, these assignments of error are too general and indefinite to raise any question for decision. For some of the cases so holding, see Wade v. Watson, 133 Ga. 608 (2), 614 (66 SE 922); Adams v. May, 145 Ga. 234 (88 SE 928); Price v. Stewart, 209 Ga. 532 (74 SE2d 458), and the cases there cited.

Argued April 10, 1962 Decided April 20, 1962. A. W. Touchton, for plaintiffs in error. C. J. Taylor, John W. Langdale, J. Lundie Smith, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Candler, Justice.

In the instant case, each of the parties moved for a summary judgment after they had introduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The trial judge found and held that the pleadings and the evidence showed no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the defendant was entitled to a judgment in its favor as a matter of law; and such a judgment was accordingly granted. The *801 bill of exceptions contains two assignments of error. One complains about the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to strike a portion of the defendant’s answer, the exception to> which is as follows: “. . . to which ruling plaintiff excepted, now excepts and assigns the same as error.” The other complains about the order granting a summary judgment in defendant’s favor, the exception to which is as follows: “. . . to which judgment plaintiff excepted, now excepts and assigns same as error.” Under numerous decisions of this court, these assignments of error are too general and indefinite to raise any question for decision. For some of the cases so holding, see Wade v. Watson, 133 Ga. 608 (2), 614 (66 SE 922); Adams v. May, 145 Ga. 234 (88 SE 928); Price v. Stewart, 209 Ga. 532 (74 SE2d 458), and the cases there cited.

Argued April 10, 1962 Decided April 20, 1962. A. W. Touchton, for plaintiffs in error. C. J. Taylor, John W. Langdale, J. Lundie Smith, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E.2d 487, 217 Ga. 800, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-langdale-company-ga-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack