Fulton Lodge No. 32 v. Roberson

89 S.E. 1088, 18 Ga. App. 586, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1124
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 21, 1916·No. 7393·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Hodges, J.

This case was tried before a judge of the municipal court of Atlanta, without the intervention of a jury; he found against the 'defendant, a motion for a new trial was overruled, and, on appeal, the appellate division of the municipal court affirmed the judgment of the trial judge. The document sent up in the record as a brief of the evidence consists largely of rulings of the court, argument of counsel, and colloquies between counsel and the court, and is not a compliance with the provisions of the code and the rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court as to the briefing of evidence. Park’s Code, vol. 5, § 6093, and annotations. It is held by the Supreme Court that “When there is no legal brief of evidence with the motion for a new trial, but only a document which fails to comply with the provisions of the Civil Code (1910), § 6093, the Court of Appeals should not look to such a-document for the purpose of determining the questions raised in the motion for a new trial.” Whitaker v. State, 138 Ga. 139 (4), 145 (75 S. E. 254). The judgment of the court below must therefore be

Affirmed.

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

Fulton Lodge No. 32 v. Roberson, 89 S.E. 1088, 18 Ga. App. 586, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1124 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

89 S.E. 1088 (Fulton Lodge No. 32 v. Roberson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Phillips & Son v. Bagwell Motor Car Co.
96 S.E. 334 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)