Majette v. Strickland

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Majette v. Strickland

118 S.E. 477, 30 Ga. App. 624, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 574

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 11, 1923

Docket14208

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 S.E. 477 (Majette v. Strickland) 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

Majette v. Strickland, 118 S.E. 477, 30 Ga. App. 624, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 574 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. “ The defendant in error moved to dismiss the bill of exceptions, because pervice was not made or acknowledged within ten days of the signing of the same. The motion is denied as not being well taken. Ga. L. 1911, p. 149 (Park’s Ann. Code, § 6164 (a)); Stewart v. Randall, 138 Ga. 796 (76 S. E. 352); Jones v. Patterson, 138 Ga. 862 (76 S. E. 378); Cook v. Parsons, 143 Ga. 127 (84 S. E. 559); Mitchell Automobile Co. v. McDaniel, 143 Ga. 516 (85 S. E. 635); Langford v. Salter, 146 Ga. 123 (90 S. E. 860).” Scott v. Davis, 22 Ga. App. 32 (1) (95 S. E. 332). The ruling quoted above is controlling in this ease, and the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is overruled.

2. This court cannot consider the special grounds of the motion for a new trial, as neither of them contains a proper assignment of error.

3. Not being fully convinced that the bill of exceptions in this case was prosecuted for delay only, the statutory damages of ten per cent. (Civil Code of 1910, § 6213), asked for by defendant in error, are refused.

4. The verdict was not without evidence to support it, and has the approval of the judge who tried the ease; no error of law is shown to have been committed, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. “ The defendant in error moved to dismiss the bill of exceptions, because pervice was not made or acknowledged within ten days of the signing of the same. The motion is denied as not being well taken. Ga. L. 1911, p. 149 (Park’s Ann. Code, § 6164 (a)); Stewart v. Randall, 138 Ga. 796 (76 S. E. 352); Jones v. Patterson, 138 Ga. 862 (76 S. E. 378); Cook v. Parsons, 143 Ga. 127 (84 S. E. 559); Mitchell Automobile Co. v. McDaniel, 143 Ga. 516 (85 S. E. 635); Langford v. Salter, 146 Ga. 123 (90 S. E. 860).” Scott v. Davis, 22 Ga. App. 32 (1) (95 S. E. 332). The ruling quoted above is controlling in this ease, and the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is overruled.

2. This court cannot consider the special grounds of the motion for a new trial, as neither of them contains a proper assignment of error.

3. Not being fully convinced that the bill of exceptions in this case was prosecuted for delay only, the statutory damages of ten per cent. (Civil Code of 1910, § 6213), asked for by defendant in error, are refused.

4. The verdict was not without evidence to support it, and has the approval of the judge who tried the ease; no error of law is shown to have been committed, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.E. 477, 30 Ga. App. 624, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/majette-v-strickland-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack