Cotton v. Cotton

Supreme Court of Georgia

Cotton v. Cotton

70 S.E. 1015, 136 Ga. 138, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 445

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 70 S.E. 1015 (Cotton v. Cotton) 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

Cotton v. Cotton, 70 S.E. 1015, 136 Ga. 138, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 445 (Ga. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. A failure to make a proper brief of evidence, and the inclusion therein of questions and answers, objections of counsel, and the like, does not furnish ground for dismissing the writ of error. But where there has been no bona fide effort to comply with the statute on that subject, the purported brief of evidence will not be considered; nor will questions be determined which require a consideration of such brief.

(a.) In the present case, while the brief of evidence contained some surplusage, including questions and answers, and some statements of objections, there was no such flagrant disregard of the statute as to require the application of the rule stated in the previous headnote.

2. In the first three cases here decided (J. D. Cotton v. Carrie Cotton, Hogan v. Cotton, and Franklin v. Cotton), the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

3. None of the rulings made in such cases require a reversal.

4. in the fourth case (E. S. Cotton v. Carrie Cotton) there was no evidence to authorize the charge, as against this plaintiff, that if the defendant had purchased the land in dispute from the plaintiffs and had paid all of them and had been put in possession by them,' they could not recover.

Judgment affirmed in the first three eases, and reversed in the fourth.

All the Justices concur.

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

Lumpkin, J.

1. A failure to make a proper brief of evidence, and the inclusion therein of questions and answers, objections of counsel, and the like, does not furnish ground for dismissing the writ of error. But where there has been no bona fide effort to comply with the statute on that subject, the purported brief of evidence will not be considered; nor will questions be determined which require a consideration of such brief.

(a.) In the present case, while the brief of evidence contained some surplusage, including questions and answers, and some statements of objections, there was no such flagrant disregard of the statute as to require the application of the rule stated in the previous headnote.

2. In the first three cases here decided (J. D. Cotton v. Carrie Cotton, Hogan v. Cotton, and Franklin v. Cotton), the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

3. None of the rulings made in such cases require a reversal.

4. in the fourth case (E. S. Cotton v. Carrie Cotton) there was no evidence to authorize the charge, as against this plaintiff, that if the defendant had purchased the land in dispute from the plaintiffs and had paid all of them and had been put in possession by them,' they could not recover.

Judgment affirmed in the first three eases, and reversed in the fourth.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E. 1015, 136 Ga. 138, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cotton-v-cotton-ga-1911.

Opinion

3. None of the rulings made in such cases require a reversal.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack