Odom v. Odom

Supreme Court of Georgia

Odom v. Odom

55 S.E.2d 148, 205 Ga. 767, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 638

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 15, 1949

Docket16764.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 S.E.2d 148 (Odom v. Odom) 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

Odom v. Odom, 55 S.E.2d 148, 205 Ga. 767, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 638 (Ga. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Head, Justice.

The motion to dissolve the receivership was based on allegations of fact. Neither the original motion to dissolve, nor the amendment, was verified by the petitioner. The motion to dissolve was not evidence of the facts alleged. The record clearly discloses that there was some hearing and consideration of the motion to dissolve the receivership. The bill of exceptions does not recite that the motion to dissolve was considered by the court on the pleadings alone. There is no evidence incorporated in the bill of exceptions on the hearing on the motion to dissolve, nor is any evidence specified as material to an understanding of the errors complained of. The application to appoint a receiver was duly verified, and set up a statement of facts which authorized, if indeed it did not demand, the appointment of a receiver. Since there is no evidence incorporated in the bill of exceptions and *768 none specified or otherwise brought to this court, no question dependent upon evidence could be decided. Kennedy v. Rogers, 145 Ga. 293 (3) (88 S. E. 974); McBurnette v. Huff, 154 Ga. 452, 453 (114 S. E. 578); Register v. Colter, 171 Ga. 439 (155 S. E. 767). The questions made by the motion to dissolve the receivership were entirely dependent upon evidence, and it follows that the judgment of the court below must be Affirmed.

No. 16764. September 15, 1949. All the Justices concur. *769 J. T. Edwards, for plaintiff in error. S. B. McCall, contra.

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

Head, Justice.

The motion to dissolve the receivership was based on allegations of fact. Neither the original motion to dissolve, nor the amendment, was verified by the petitioner. The motion to dissolve was not evidence of the facts alleged. The record clearly discloses that there was some hearing and consideration of the motion to dissolve the receivership. The bill of exceptions does not recite that the motion to dissolve was considered by the court on the pleadings alone. There is no evidence incorporated in the bill of exceptions on the hearing on the motion to dissolve, nor is any evidence specified as material to an understanding of the errors complained of. The application to appoint a receiver was duly verified, and set up a statement of facts which authorized, if indeed it did not demand, the appointment of a receiver. Since there is no evidence incorporated in the bill of exceptions and *768 none specified or otherwise brought to this court, no question dependent upon evidence could be decided. Kennedy v. Rogers, 145 Ga. 293 (3) (88 S. E. 974); McBurnette v. Huff, 154 Ga. 452, 453 (114 S. E. 578); Register v. Colter, 171 Ga. 439 (155 S. E. 767). The questions made by the motion to dissolve the receivership were entirely dependent upon evidence, and it follows that the judgment of the court below must be Affirmed.

No. 16764. September 15, 1949. All the Justices concur. *769 J. T. Edwards, for plaintiff in error. S. B. McCall, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.E.2d 148, 205 Ga. 767, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odom-v-odom-ga-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack