Freeman v. Lee

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Freeman v. Lee

66 S.E. 479, 7 Ga. App. 141, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 561

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 10, 1909·No. 1940·Published

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

There is no approval of the brief of evidence by the trial court. The agreement of counsel to the brief of evidence does not dispense with the necessity for such approval. The judgment must, therefore, be af[142]*142firmed, as the only question presented to this court in the brief of plaintiff in error depends upon a consideration of the evidence.

Breach of guaranty; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Reid. April 12, 1909.

Submitted July 19, Decided December 10, 1909. Mayson & Hill, for plaintiff in error. Candlers, Thomson & Kirsch, R. L. D. McAllister, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

There is no approval of the brief of evidence by the trial court. The agreement of counsel to the brief of evidence does not dispense with the necessity for such approval. The judgment must, therefore, be af[142]*142firmed, as the only question presented to this court in the brief of plaintiff in error depends upon a consideration of the evidence.

Breach of guaranty; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Reid. April 12, 1909.

Submitted July 19, Decided December 10, 1909. Mayson & Hill, for plaintiff in error. Candlers, Thomson & Kirsch, R. L. D. McAllister, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Freeman v. Lee, 66 S.E. 479, 7 Ga. App. 141, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 561 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

66 S.E. 479 (Freeman v. Lee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.