City of Atlanta v. Hayes

Court of Appeals of Georgia

City of Atlanta v. Hayes

60 S.E. 327, 3 Ga. App. 614, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 391

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1908

Docket684

StatusPublished

This text of 60 S.E. 327 (City of Atlanta v. Hayes) 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

City of Atlanta v. Hayes, 60 S.E. 327, 3 Ga. App. 614, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 391 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. No constitutional question, such as to require certification to the Supreme Court, is presented in the record. Hayes v. Atlanta, 1 Ga. App. 28 (57 S. E. 1087); Anderson v. State, 2 Ga. App. 1 (58 S. E. 401), and cases cited.

2. Many of the points made in the present record were decided adversely to- the plaintiff in error, when this case was previously before this, court. See Hayes v. Atlanta, supra.

3. The assignments of error as to the admission or exclusion of testimony are, under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, insufficient to raise any question for determination. See Spence v. Morrow, 128 Ga. 722 (58 S. E. 356); McFarland v. Darien & Western R. Co., 127 Ga. 97 (3) (56 S. E. 74); Yeates v. State, 127 Ga. 813 (2), (56 S. E. 1017); Barker v. State, 1 Ga. App. 286 (57 S. E. 989); Peoples National Bank v. Haralson, 1 Ga. App. 312 (57 S. E. 991).

Judgment ■ a/firmed.

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

Powell, J.

1. No constitutional question, such as to require certification to the Supreme Court, is presented in the record. Hayes v. Atlanta, 1 Ga. App. 28 (57 S. E. 1087); Anderson v. State, 2 Ga. App. 1 (58 S. E. 401), and cases cited.

2. Many of the points made in the present record were decided adversely to- the plaintiff in error, when this case was previously before this, court. See Hayes v. Atlanta, supra.

3. The assignments of error as to the admission or exclusion of testimony are, under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, insufficient to raise any question for determination. See Spence v. Morrow, 128 Ga. 722 (58 S. E. 356); McFarland v. Darien & Western R. Co., 127 Ga. 97 (3) (56 S. E. 74); Yeates v. State, 127 Ga. 813 (2), (56 S. E. 1017); Barker v. State, 1 Ga. App. 286 (57 S. E. 989); Peoples National Bank v. Haralson, 1 Ga. App. 312 (57 S. E. 991).

Judgment ■ a/firmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.E. 327, 3 Ga. App. 614, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-atlanta-v-hayes-gactapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack