Grant v. Charles S. Martin Distributing Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Grant v. Charles S. Martin Distributing Co.

143 S.E.2d 517, 112 Ga. App. 21, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 590

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 24, 1965

Docket41350

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 S.E.2d 517 (Grant v. Charles S. Martin Distributing Co.) 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

Grant v. Charles S. Martin Distributing Co., 143 S.E.2d 517, 112 Ga. App. 21, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Frankum, Judge.

Under the provisions of Code Ann. § 6-901, a bill of exceptions assigning error on a ruling or judgment [22]*22of the trial court must plainly specify the decision complained of and the alleged error therein. So, where the decision complained of is not one either granting or denying a motion for a new trial, and where the judgment complained of might have been assigned as error on two or more possible grounds, a mere general assignment of error that such judgment is excepted to “as being contraiy to law” is too vague, indefinite and uncertain to present any question for decision by this court. Soman v. Yeager, 209 Ga. 444 (73 SE2d 198); Carter v. Langdale Co., 217 Ga. 800 (125 SE2d 487); Palmer v. Ingram, 2 Ga. App. 200 (1) (58 SE 362); Scott v. Weinberg, 97 Ga. App. 27 (102 SE2d 56); Chesser v. Scarborough, 106 Ga. App. 529 (127 SE2d 493); Alligood v. State, 108 Ga. App. 453 (3) (133 SE2d 431). There being no other assignment of error in the case, the writ of error must be

Submitted June 9, 1965 Decided June 24, 1965. John N. Crudup, for plaintiff in error. Charles L. Henry, Frank B. Stowe, contra.

Dismissed.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

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

Frankum, Judge.

Under the provisions of Code Ann. § 6-901, a bill of exceptions assigning error on a ruling or judgment [22]*22of the trial court must plainly specify the decision complained of and the alleged error therein. So, where the decision complained of is not one either granting or denying a motion for a new trial, and where the judgment complained of might have been assigned as error on two or more possible grounds, a mere general assignment of error that such judgment is excepted to “as being contraiy to law” is too vague, indefinite and uncertain to present any question for decision by this court. Soman v. Yeager, 209 Ga. 444 (73 SE2d 198); Carter v. Langdale Co., 217 Ga. 800 (125 SE2d 487); Palmer v. Ingram, 2 Ga. App. 200 (1) (58 SE 362); Scott v. Weinberg, 97 Ga. App. 27 (102 SE2d 56); Chesser v. Scarborough, 106 Ga. App. 529 (127 SE2d 493); Alligood v. State, 108 Ga. App. 453 (3) (133 SE2d 431). There being no other assignment of error in the case, the writ of error must be

Submitted June 9, 1965 Decided June 24, 1965. John N. Crudup, for plaintiff in error. Charles L. Henry, Frank B. Stowe, contra.

Dismissed.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E.2d 517, 112 Ga. App. 21, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-charles-s-martin-distributing-co-gactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack