Floyd v. Floyd

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Floyd v. Floyd

140 S.E. 776, 37 Ga. App. 483, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 354

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 13, 1927

Docket18482

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 S.E. 776 (Floyd v. Floyd) 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

Floyd v. Floyd, 140 S.E. 776, 37 Ga. App. 483, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 354 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Tlie bill of exceptions contains two assignments of error, the first upon the judgment overruling the defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition, and the second upon the final judgment of the court (sitting without a jury) in favor of the plaintiff. The first assignment of error was not preserved by exceptions pendente lite, and the judgment excepted to was rendered on August 3, 1927, while the bill of exceptions was not tendered to the judge until September 3, 1927. It follows that the first assignment of error can not be considered by this court. ,

2. Under all the facts of the case as disclosed by the record, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was not error for any reason assigned. This case Was not a controversy between coadministrators as to a division of their commissions, and the decision in Groover v. Ash, 132 Ga. 371 (64 S. E. 323, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1119, 131 Am. St. R. 201), is not

applicable. Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Hinton Booth, for plaintiff in error. Howell Gone, Deal & Renfroe, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Tlie bill of exceptions contains two assignments of error, the first upon the judgment overruling the defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition, and the second upon the final judgment of the court (sitting without a jury) in favor of the plaintiff. The first assignment of error was not preserved by exceptions pendente lite, and the judgment excepted to was rendered on August 3, 1927, while the bill of exceptions was not tendered to the judge until September 3, 1927. It follows that the first assignment of error can not be considered by this court. ,

2. Under all the facts of the case as disclosed by the record, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was not error for any reason assigned. This case Was not a controversy between coadministrators as to a division of their commissions, and the decision in Groover v. Ash, 132 Ga. 371 (64 S. E. 323, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1119, 131 Am. St. R. 201), is not

applicable. Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Hinton Booth, for plaintiff in error. Howell Gone, Deal & Renfroe, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 776, 37 Ga. App. 483, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-floyd-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack