James v. Sullivan

Court of Appeals of Georgia

James v. Sullivan

100 S.E. 654, 24 Ga. App. 297, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 583

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 20, 1919·No. 10417·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Stephens, J.

Upon the call of this ease there being no representation for the plaintiff in error, by brief or otherwise, and it being plainly apparent that the writ of error was prosecuted for delay only, the motion of the defendant in error that the record be opened, the [298] judgment therein affirmed, and damages of ten per "Cent, for delay be awarded him, is granted. (Civil Code, § 6249).

Decided October 20, 1919.

Motion for new trial; from Douglas superior court—Judge Bartlett. December 27, 1918.

J. B. Hutcheson, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed, with damages.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

Upon the call of this ease there being no representation for the plaintiff in error, by brief or otherwise, and it being plainly apparent that the writ of error was prosecuted for delay only, the motion of the defendant in error that the record be opened, the [298] judgment therein affirmed, and damages of ten per "Cent, for delay be awarded him, is granted. (Civil Code, § 6249).

Decided October 20, 1919.

Motion for new trial; from Douglas superior court—Judge Bartlett. December 27, 1918.

J. B. Hutcheson, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed, with damages.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

James v. Sullivan, 100 S.E. 654, 24 Ga. App. 297, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 583 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

100 S.E. 654 (James v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related