Eubanks v. Griffin Investment Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Eubanks v. Griffin Investment Co.

134 S.E. 760, 162 Ga. 717, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 267

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 18, 1926

DocketNo. 5180

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 134 S.E. 760 (Eubanks v. Griffin Investment Co.) 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

Eubanks v. Griffin Investment Co., 134 S.E. 760, 162 Ga. 717, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 267 (Ga. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. To á final judgment rendered by the court passing upon questions both of law and fact, by consent without the intervention of a jury, an assignment of error in the bill of exceptions, immediately following a copy of the judgment, which states that the defendant “contends that said judgment is error,” fails to specify any error and can not be considered. Marshall v. English-American Loan &c. Co., 127 Ga. 376 (2) (56 S. E. 449); Peavy v. Atkinson, 108 Ga. 167 (33 S. E. 956) ; Horkan v. Moultrie, 145 Ga. 588 (89 S. E. 681).

[718]*718No. 5180. September 18, 1926. Scolt & HornbucMe and O. G. Reynolds, for plaintiff in error. McElrecuth & Scolt, contra.

2. There being no sufficient assignment of error, the writ of error is dismissed. Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. To á final judgment rendered by the court passing upon questions both of law and fact, by consent without the intervention of a jury, an assignment of error in the bill of exceptions, immediately following a copy of the judgment, which states that the defendant “contends that said judgment is error,” fails to specify any error and can not be considered. Marshall v. English-American Loan &c. Co., 127 Ga. 376 (2) (56 S. E. 449); Peavy v. Atkinson, 108 Ga. 167 (33 S. E. 956) ; Horkan v. Moultrie, 145 Ga. 588 (89 S. E. 681).

[718]*718No. 5180. September 18, 1926. Scolt & HornbucMe and O. G. Reynolds, for plaintiff in error. McElrecuth & Scolt, contra.

2. There being no sufficient assignment of error, the writ of error is dismissed. Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E. 760, 162 Ga. 717, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eubanks-v-griffin-investment-co-ga-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack