Johnson v. Douglas Grocery Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Johnson v. Douglas Grocery Co.

65 S.E. 719, 6 Ga. App. 681, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 424

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 5, 1909

Docket1776

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 S.E. 719 (Johnson v. Douglas 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

Johnson v. Douglas Grocery Co., 65 S.E. 719, 6 Ga. App. 681, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 424 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

None of the assignments of error in this case can be intelligently determined without a consideration of the evidence. There is no proper brief of the evidence, but what purports to be a brief consists of the oral and documentary evidence in full, extensively interspersed with objections to testimony, and with statements and arguments of counsel, colloquies between court and counsel, and' motions to nonsuit and to direct a verdict, with the rulings of the court, etc., etc. The imperfections above indicated’ were not corrected by a motion to strike from the brief “everything- contained therein except the oral and documentary testimony,” made and allowed before the motion for a new trial was filed, when in fact no change in the brief was made, but the mass of immaterial matter remained as the brief. According to repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, the judgment must be affirmed. Hirsch v. Dozier Lumber Co., 2 Ga. App. 520 (58 S. E. 786); Wright v. State, 3 Ga. App. 663 (60 S. E. 329); Hathcock v. McGouirk, 119 Ga. 980 (47 S. E. 563); Carmichael v. State, 111 Ga. 653 (36 S. E. 872).

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

None of the assignments of error in this case can be intelligently determined without a consideration of the evidence. There is no proper brief of the evidence, but what purports to be a brief consists of the oral and documentary evidence in full, extensively interspersed with objections to testimony, and with statements and arguments of counsel, colloquies between court and counsel, and' motions to nonsuit and to direct a verdict, with the rulings of the court, etc., etc. The imperfections above indicated’ were not corrected by a motion to strike from the brief “everything- contained therein except the oral and documentary testimony,” made and allowed before the motion for a new trial was filed, when in fact no change in the brief was made, but the mass of immaterial matter remained as the brief. According to repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, the judgment must be affirmed. Hirsch v. Dozier Lumber Co., 2 Ga. App. 520 (58 S. E. 786); Wright v. State, 3 Ga. App. 663 (60 S. E. 329); Hathcock v. McGouirk, 119 Ga. 980 (47 S. E. 563); Carmichael v. State, 111 Ga. 653 (36 S. E. 872).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 S.E. 719, 6 Ga. App. 681, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-douglas-grocery-co-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack