Fulton Lodge No. 32 v. Roberson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fulton Lodge No. 32 v. Roberson

89 S.E. 1088, 18 Ga. App. 586, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1124

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 21, 1916

Docket7393

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 1088 (Fulton Lodge No. 32 v. Roberson) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 1088, 18 Ga. App. 586, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulton-lodge-no-32-v-roberson-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack