Howard v. Holland

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Howard v. Holland

114 S.E. 549, 29 Ga. App. 186, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 144

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 14, 1922

Docket13764

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 S.E. 549 (Howard v. Holland) 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

Howard v. Holland, 114 S.E. 549, 29 Ga. App. 186, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 144 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

It is well settled'that where the answer to a writ of certiorari is untraversed and unexeepted to, all issues raised in the petition must be determined by the answer, and that allegations of error contained in the petition which are not verified by the answer cannot be considered. In this case the allegations in the petition that the court erred in admitting certain evidence over the objection of inovant are not verified by the answer, the answer setting out the evidence but making no reference to any ruling as to the admission of any portion thereof. The evidence, as shown by the answer, is sufficient to support the verdict, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luhe, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

It is well settled'that where the answer to a writ of certiorari is untraversed and unexeepted to, all issues raised in the petition must be determined by the answer, and that allegations of error contained in the petition which are not verified by the answer cannot be considered. In this case the allegations in the petition that the court erred in admitting certain evidence over the objection of inovant are not verified by the answer, the answer setting out the evidence but making no reference to any ruling as to the admission of any portion thereof. The evidence, as shown by the answer, is sufficient to support the verdict, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luhe, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.E. 549, 29 Ga. App. 186, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-holland-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack