Langley Manufacturing Co. v. Frey & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Langley Manufacturing Co. v. Frey & Co.

73 S.E. 1074, 10 Ga. App. 753, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 670

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 6, 1912

Docket3830

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 1074 (Langley Manufacturing Co. v. Frey & 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

Langley Manufacturing Co. v. Frey & Co., 73 S.E. 1074, 10 Ga. App. 753, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 670 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. A petition for certiorari should not be dismissed for want of an assignment of error, when it sets forth the evidence alleged to have been introduced /at the trial, the judgment' of the inferior judicatory, and avers that the judgment is contrary to law, contrary to evidence, and decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence.

2. Where there is no disputed issue of fact, the judgment of the inferior judicatory may be reviewed by certiorari. Toole v. Edmondson, 104 Ga. 776 (31 S. E. 25).

3. The monthly wages of one employed to cheek cotton as it is weighed and classified, and who also works as a stenographer, typewriter, and letter filer, are not subject to the process of garnishment. Cohen v. Aldrich, 5 Ga. App. 256 (62 S. E. 1015).

4. The certiorari should have been sustained, and a new trial ordered, but as the evidence on the new hearing may be different, a final judgment should not be entered. Almand v. Georgia R. Co., 102 Ga. 151 (29 S. E. 159). Judgment reversed.

J. M. Hull Jr., Lansing B. Lee, for plaintiff in error. A. R. Williamson, M. C. Barwiclc, contra.

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