Peck v. Harris
This text of 144 S.E. 20 (Peck v. Harris) 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.
Opinion
1. According to the rulings made in Lyndon v. Georgia R. &c. Co., 129 Ga. 353 (58 S. E. 1047), Patterson v. Beck, 133 Ga. 701 (66 S. E. 911), Roddenbery v. Patterson, 136 Ga. 187 (71 S. E. 138), and Hodges v. Citizens Bank, 146 Ga. 624 (92 S. E. 49), there was a sufficient assignment of error; and therefore the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the writ of error.
2. Where a demurrer to portions of the answer was sustained, and, there being no conflict in the evidence, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which a final judgment was entered, a bill of exceptions [634]*634to such final judgment, which also excepted to the judgment sustaining the demurrer, “was sufficient to bring before the Supreme Court the question of the correctness of the latter ruling.” Roddenbery v. Patterson, supra. Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
144 S.E. 20, 166 Ga. 633, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peck-v-harris-ga-1928.