Chero-Cola Bottling Co. v. Southern Express Co.

116 S.E. 325, 29 Ga. App. 656, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 153
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 16, 1923·No. 13633·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Bell, J.

This case was before this court on a previous occasion. Southern Express Co. v. Chero-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Ga. App. 190 (100 S. E. 289). The letter referred to in the headnotes was then held to have been improperly admitted in evidence over the objections: its subject-matter not shown, nor authority of R. H. May, nor who May was; hearsay. It appears, from the brief of the evidence, that upon the trial now under review there was proof sufficient to meet the objections and to render it admissible. However, it comes before us now unobjected to. The record discloses that objections were made, but no cross-bill of exceptions was filed to preserve them.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Chero-Cola Bottling Co. v. Southern Express Co., 116 S.E. 325, 29 Ga. App. 656, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

116 S.E. 325 (Chero-Cola Bottling Co. v. Southern Express Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lathan v. Murrah, Inc.
183 S.E.2d 496 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
Carter v. Marble Products Inc.
175 S.E. 480 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Brooks v. Sessoms
171 S.E. 222 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Few v. First National Bank
151 S.E. 546 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Continental Trust Co. v. Tennille Banking Co.
146 S.E. 566 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Haas & Howell v. Godby
125 S.E. 897 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Colt Co. v. Wheeler
120 S.E. 792 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Bennett v. Watson
120 S.E. 802 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)