Neal v. Chitwood

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Neal v. Chitwood

164 S.E. 162, 45 Ga. App. 212, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 239

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 30, 1932

Docket22115

StatusPublished

This text of 164 S.E. 162 (Neal v. Chitwood) 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

Neal v. Chitwood, 164 S.E. 162, 45 Ga. App. 212, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

W. .H. Chitwood sued L. D. Neal on an open account, in a justice’s court, and obtained a verdict for the amount sued for, Neal sued out a writ of certiorari, the certiorari was overruled, and Neal excepted. The only assignment of error in the petition for certiorari that is argued or insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error is upon the ruling of the magistrate admitting in evidence, over the objections of the defendant, certain documents, consisting of bills of lading, receipts, and calculations made by the plaintiff. However, the petition for certiorari does not set forth, either literally or in substance, the documentary evidence, nor is such evidence attached as an exhibit to the petition; and, under repeated rulings of the Su[213]*213preme Court and of this court, the assignment of error, under such circumstances, can not be considered, and the judgment overruling the certiorari must be and is

Decided April 30, 1932. J. H. Paschall, for plaintiff in error. Y. A. Henderson, contra.

Affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

W. .H. Chitwood sued L. D. Neal on an open account, in a justice’s court, and obtained a verdict for the amount sued for, Neal sued out a writ of certiorari, the certiorari was overruled, and Neal excepted. The only assignment of error in the petition for certiorari that is argued or insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error is upon the ruling of the magistrate admitting in evidence, over the objections of the defendant, certain documents, consisting of bills of lading, receipts, and calculations made by the plaintiff. However, the petition for certiorari does not set forth, either literally or in substance, the documentary evidence, nor is such evidence attached as an exhibit to the petition; and, under repeated rulings of the Su[213]*213preme Court and of this court, the assignment of error, under such circumstances, can not be considered, and the judgment overruling the certiorari must be and is

Decided April 30, 1932. J. H. Paschall, for plaintiff in error. Y. A. Henderson, contra.

Affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E. 162, 45 Ga. App. 212, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-chitwood-gactapp-1932.