Kimball v. Williams & McCurdy

33 S.E. 994, 108 Ga. 812, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 463
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 28, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 33 S.E. 994 (Kimball v. Williams & McCurdy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kimball v. Williams & McCurdy, 33 S.E. 994, 108 Ga. 812, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 463 (Ga. 1899).

Opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

This case was submitted to the presiding judge for decision without the intervention of a jury. A judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant’s bill of exceptions makes no lawful assignment of error, the only attempt to do so being as follows: “To which ruling and judgment.the said defendant excepted and now assigns the same as error.” This language is entirely too general, and does not properly present any question for determination by this court. Accordingly, the writ of error must be dismissed. See Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551, and cases there cited; Peavyy. Atkinson, ante, 167. The rule laid down in the above-cited cases is none the less applicable because this case was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts. The statutory requirement that alleged errors shall be plainly and distinctly pointed out is imperative and applies to all cases.

Writ of errpr dismissed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Garland v. State of Georgia
114 S.E.2d 176 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Kimbell v. Moreland
45 S.E.2d 685 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Byers v. City of Atlanta
42 S.E.2d 140 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Johnson v. Lowry
160 S.E. 875 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Porcher v. Harvley
111 S.E. 690 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Cottonseed Oil Co.
96 S.E. 586 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Holland v. Holland
92 S.E. 538 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)
Lamar, Taylor & Riley Drug Co. v. Southern School Book Co.
90 S.E. 174 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Duren v. First National Bank
90 S.E. 224 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Horkan v. City of Moultrie
89 S.E. 681 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Willingham v. Cedartown Supply Co.
75 S.E. 823 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Patterson v. Beck
66 S.E. 911 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
Wade v. Watson
66 S.E. 922 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)
Kennedy v. Rumble
61 S.E. 839 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Neal Loan & Banking Co. v. Wright
42 S.E. 715 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
City of Fitzgerald v. Merchants & Planters Bank
39 S.E. 479 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)
Collins v. Carr
36 S.E. 959 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Papworth v. City of Fitzgerald
36 S.E. 311 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Wheeler v. Worley
35 S.E. 639 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 S.E. 994, 108 Ga. 812, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimball-v-williams-mccurdy-ga-1899.