Fitzgerald v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fitzgerald v. Brown

95 S.E. 377, 22 Ga. App. 57, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 143

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 14, 1918

Docket9267

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 377 (Fitzgerald v. Brown) 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

Fitzgerald v. Brown, 95 S.E. 377, 22 Ga. App. 57, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 143 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Tlie alleged statement of facts not being set out in the bill of exceptions, or attached thereto as an exhibit and properly identified by the trial judge, or contained in a brief of evidence approved by him and made a part of the record, what purports to be an agreed statement of facts, sent up as a part of the record, but not approved by the trial judge and ordered filed as such, can not be considered by this court. See Robinson v. Woodward, 134 Ga. 777 (68 S. E. 553); Blackman v. Garrett, 135 Ga. 226 (69 S. E. 110); Roberts v. Cairo, 133 Ga. 642 (66 S. E. 938); Silvey v. Brown, 137 Ga. 104 (72 S. E. 907).

2. Section 3 of the act of 1911 (Ga. L. 1911, p. 149) is by its terms applicable exclusively to motions for a new trial, and is not applicable to this casé, wherein there was no motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, G. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. Tlie alleged statement of facts not being set out in the bill of exceptions, or attached thereto as an exhibit and properly identified by the trial judge, or contained in a brief of evidence approved by him and made a part of the record, what purports to be an agreed statement of facts, sent up as a part of the record, but not approved by the trial judge and ordered filed as such, can not be considered by this court. See Robinson v. Woodward, 134 Ga. 777 (68 S. E. 553); Blackman v. Garrett, 135 Ga. 226 (69 S. E. 110); Roberts v. Cairo, 133 Ga. 642 (66 S. E. 938); Silvey v. Brown, 137 Ga. 104 (72 S. E. 907).

2. Section 3 of the act of 1911 (Ga. L. 1911, p. 149) is by its terms applicable exclusively to motions for a new trial, and is not applicable to this casé, wherein there was no motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, G. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 377, 22 Ga. App. 57, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-brown-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack