Huntley Manufacturing Co. v. Nixon Grocery Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Huntley Manufacturing Co. v. Nixon Grocery Co.

64 S.E. 279, 6 Ga. App. 46, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 171

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1909

Docket1357

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 64 S.E. 279 (Huntley Manufacturing Co. v. Nixon Grocery 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

Huntley Manufacturing Co. v. Nixon Grocery Co., 64 S.E. 279, 6 Ga. App. 46, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 171 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, O. J.

There is no brief of the evidence in this ease, as required by the Civil Code, §§5484, 5488. What purports to be a brief of the evidence consists of a lengthy correspondence between the parties, the many letters being given in full, with no attempt to brief their contents. This court can not undertake to winnow the wheat from the chaff, or separate the material from the immaterial in the evidence. This work can be better done by the attorneys; and unless the statute is complied with in this respect, an affirmance must result, where the questions to [47]*47be decided, depend upon a consideration of tlie evidence. In this ease the only question presented for decision depends upon the construction of the evidence; and there being no proper brief of the evidence, the. judgment must be affirmed. Hirsch v. Dozier Lumber Co., 2 Ga. App. 520 (58 S. E. 786); Harris v. McArthur, 90 Ga. 217 (15 S. E. 758).

Appeal, from Eichmond superior court — Judge Hammond. • July 27, 1908.

Submitted November 12, 1908. — Decided April 15, 1909. William H. Fleming, for plaintiff. C. H. & B. S. Cohen, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, O. J.

There is no brief of the evidence in this ease, as required by the Civil Code, §§5484, 5488. What purports to be a brief of the evidence consists of a lengthy correspondence between the parties, the many letters being given in full, with no attempt to brief their contents. This court can not undertake to winnow the wheat from the chaff, or separate the material from the immaterial in the evidence. This work can be better done by the attorneys; and unless the statute is complied with in this respect, an affirmance must result, where the questions to [47]*47be decided, depend upon a consideration of tlie evidence. In this ease the only question presented for decision depends upon the construction of the evidence; and there being no proper brief of the evidence, the. judgment must be affirmed. Hirsch v. Dozier Lumber Co., 2 Ga. App. 520 (58 S. E. 786); Harris v. McArthur, 90 Ga. 217 (15 S. E. 758).

Appeal, from Eichmond superior court — Judge Hammond. • July 27, 1908.

Submitted November 12, 1908. — Decided April 15, 1909. William H. Fleming, for plaintiff. C. H. & B. S. Cohen, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 S.E. 279, 6 Ga. App. 46, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huntley-manufacturing-co-v-nixon-grocery-co-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack