Newman v. Arnold

168 S.E. 27, 176 Ga. 387, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 83
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 16, 1933
DocketNo. 9040
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 168 S.E. 27 (Newman v. Arnold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Newman v. Arnold, 168 S.E. 27, 176 Ga. 387, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 83 (Ga. 1933).

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

Stanford Arnold, as administrator of the estate of Mrs. M. E. Newman, brought his petition for direction, and in it set up many facts upon which he based the petition for direction by the court and for its adjudication of certain issues involved. All heirs at law of the deceased were duly made parties, also creditors and other claimants to the assets and properties of the estate. One of the parties was X. E. Newman, son of X. 0. Newman, one of the heirs at law. The case on the law and the facts was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury; and after a hearing, [388]*388at which evidence was introduced by several of the parties, the court rendered a judgment and decree adjudicating and establishing the liens of certain creditors against all the property involved, ruling that title to specified tracts of land involved in the litigation was vested in one of the parties to the case, and that title to other tracts was vested in other parties; and further adjudicating that X. B. Newman had no title to a tract of land specifically designated. Issues of fact and questions of law involved in the case were settled by this decree. X. E. Newman alone excepted to the decree, and the only exception taken by him is that the judgment is “contrary to the law, the facts, and the evidence in said case.” No specific question of law is raised in the exception. The only question raised by such an exception is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding and judgment of the court; and after an examination of the evidence contained in the record, this court is of the opinion that the evidence and the inferences which the court was authorized to draw therefrom were sufficient to support the finding and decree.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Kane v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF KENTUCKY
133 S.E.2d 913 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Walker v. State
117 S.E.2d 156 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1960)
Dooly v. Gates
22 S.E.2d 730 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Calhoun v. Ozburn
198 S.E. 706 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 S.E. 27, 176 Ga. 387, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-arnold-ga-1933.