McDowell v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McDowell v. State

117 S.E.2d 886, 102 Ga. App. 761, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 743

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 30, 1960

Docket38573

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 S.E.2d 886 (McDowell v. State) 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

McDowell v. State, 117 S.E.2d 886, 102 Ga. App. 761, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 743 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Carlisle, Judge.

An approved brief of the evidence is essential to a valid motion for a new trial, and where, as in this case, the record shows that the trial judge overruled the motion for a new trial on the general grounds on August 4, 1960, and that no valid brief of the evidence was approved by him until August 31, 1960, the judgment overruling the motion was proper and must be .affirmed. Since the trial judge did not have before him, at the time he entered the judgment, the brief of the evidence, the only legal judgment he could have rendered in the case was one of dismissal of the motion, but his judgment overruling it reaches the same result and, therefore, that judgment will not be disturbed. See Rich v. State, 74 Ga. 811; Gulick v. Mulcahy, 95 Ga. App. 158 (97 S. E. 2d 362); Scales v. Neal, 96 Ga. App. 168 (99 S. E. 2d 498). Cf. General Finance &c. Corp. v. Davis, 97 Ga. App. 391 (103 S. E. 2d 149).

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend, P. J., Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.

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

Carlisle, Judge.

An approved brief of the evidence is essential to a valid motion for a new trial, and where, as in this case, the record shows that the trial judge overruled the motion for a new trial on the general grounds on August 4, 1960, and that no valid brief of the evidence was approved by him until August 31, 1960, the judgment overruling the motion was proper and must be .affirmed. Since the trial judge did not have before him, at the time he entered the judgment, the brief of the evidence, the only legal judgment he could have rendered in the case was one of dismissal of the motion, but his judgment overruling it reaches the same result and, therefore, that judgment will not be disturbed. See Rich v. State, 74 Ga. 811; Gulick v. Mulcahy, 95 Ga. App. 158 (97 S. E. 2d 362); Scales v. Neal, 96 Ga. App. 168 (99 S. E. 2d 498). Cf. General Finance &c. Corp. v. Davis, 97 Ga. App. 391 (103 S. E. 2d 149).

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend, P. J., Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 S.E.2d 886, 102 Ga. App. 761, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdowell-v-state-gactapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack