Dilda v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Dilda v. Smith

35 S.E. 122, 110 Ga. 308, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 392

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 30, 1900·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Cobb, J.

There .was no appearance for 'the plaintiff in error, and the defendant in error moved to open the record and prayed for damages. It palpably appearing that the bill of exceptions is without merit, this fact, in connection with the failure of the plaintiff in error to prosecute his case, leads logically to the conclusion that it was brought here for delay only; and damages are awarded accordingly. Buchannon v. DeLoach Mill Mfg, Co., 105 Ga. 840, and cit.

Judgment affirmed, with damages.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Cobb, J.

There .was no appearance for 'the plaintiff in error, and the defendant in error moved to open the record and prayed for damages. It palpably appearing that the bill of exceptions is without merit, this fact, in connection with the failure of the plaintiff in error to prosecute his case, leads logically to the conclusion that it was brought here for delay only; and damages are awarded accordingly. Buchannon v. DeLoach Mill Mfg, Co., 105 Ga. 840, and cit.

Judgment affirmed, with damages.

All the Justices concurring.

Dilda v. Smith, 35 S.E. 122, 110 Ga. 308, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 392 (Ga. 1900).

Pincite

35 S.E. 122 (Dilda v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related