Lee v. Overstreet

103 S.E. 157, 150 Ga. 153, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 88
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided May 11, 1920·No. No. 1625·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

1. On the trial of the ease two deeds were offered in evidence, one executed June 25, 1918, and the other November 5, 1918, both having been recorded. These deeds were objected to on the ground that they did not have “ attached or affixed thereto any internal revenue stamp as required by the act of Congress.” Thereupon the party offering the deeds as evidence purchased the necessary stamps and, in the presence of the court, attached them to the two deeds and cancelled them. It does not appear that after the stamps were thus attached and cancelled the objection was renewed. Held, that the admission of the deeds in evidence, over the objection made before the stamps were attached, was not error. If the defendant. had desired to contest the admissibility of the deeds after the stamps were attached and cancelled, on the ground that the attaching of the stamps in the manner indicated was not sufficient compliance with the act of Congress relative to this subject, he should have renewed his objection and specifically pointed out wherein the affixing of the stamps and the eoncellation of them was insufficient.

2. Under the evidence in the case the court did not err in granting the interlocutory injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Lee v. Overstreet, 103 S.E. 157, 150 Ga. 153, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 88 (Ga. 1920).

103 S.E. 157 (Lee v. Overstreet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

HOME FINANCE COMPANY v. Smith
156 S.E.2d 522 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)