Cunningham v. Strom

68 S.E. 616, 8 Ga. App. 87, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 36
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 19, 1910·No. 2553·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

This case is here on a direct bill of exceptions in which the only valid assignment of error is that the finding of the court, without the intervention of a jury, is without any evidence to support it. No proper brief of the written and oral evidence is in the bill of exceptions or made a part of the record. What purports to be a brief is all the evidence in extenso, both material and immaterial, and also all the testimony which the court excluded from evidence; and as the only questions made depend upon a consideration of the evidence, the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed. Civil Code, §§ 5528, 5529; Albany Northern Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 6 Ga. App. 270 (64 S. E. 1114); Huntley Mfg. Co. v. Nixon Grocery Co., 6 Ga. App. 46 (64 S. E. 79), and cases cited. • ' Judgment affirmed.

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

Cunningham v. Strom, 68 S.E. 616, 8 Ga. App. 87, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 36 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

68 S.E. 616 (Cunningham v. Strom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thompson v. Marietta Trust & Banking Co.
94 S.E. 631 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Tidwell v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad
93 S.E. 511 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Mewborn v. Weitzer
84 S.E. 141 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Brown & Adams v. Weichselbaum Co.
72 S.E. 176 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)