Hancock v. McNatt

42 S.E. 525, 116 Ga. 297, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 86
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 9, 1902·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Little, J.

1. Documents and records introduced in evidence, but not incorporated in a brief of evidence so as to become a part of the record, can not be properly specified as such, so as to authorize a transcript thereof to be transmitted to this court. Where there is no brief of evidence at all, and documentary evidence is merely referred to in the bill of exceptions, this court can consider the same only so far as the contents of the documents are disclosed by the recitals in the bill of exceptions. Elwell v. Mortgage Co., 101 Ga. 496; Parks v. Norman, 108 Ga. 373; Braswell v. Brown, 112 Ga. 740.

2. Applying this rule to the case in hand, the bill of exceptions does not sufficiently show the character of the documentary evidence introduced on the trial below to enable this court to determine whether or not the judgment excepted to was erroneous.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lewis, J., absent.

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

Hancock v. McNatt, 42 S.E. 525, 116 Ga. 297, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 86 (Ga. 1902).

42 S.E. 525 (Hancock v. McNatt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Warnell v. Ponder
187 S.E. 261 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Harper v. Atlanta & West Point Railroad
125 S.E. 885 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Moore v. Southern Railway Co.
121 S.E. 138 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Doctor Shoop's Laboratories v. Davis
94 S.E. 822 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Askew v. Hogansville Cotton-Oil Co.
55 S.E. 921 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Anderson v. Anderson
52 S.E. 161 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Sayer v. Brown
46 S.E. 649 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)