Peck v. Harris

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Peck v. Harris

141 S.E. 433, 37 Ga. App. 688, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 567

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1928

Docket18576

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 S.E. 433 (Peck v. Harris) 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

Peck v. Harris, 141 S.E. 433, 37 Ga. App. 688, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 567 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Where a cause involving questions both of law and. fact is adjudicated by the judge without the intervention of a jury, and the trial results in a finding in favor of the plaintiff, and the judgment of the trial court is attacked because contrary to law, the exception should specify wherein it is contrary to law. Groover v. Inman, 60 Ga. 407 (5). Where a bill of exceptions fails so to specify, the assignment of error is too general, and the bill of exceptions, if it contain no other assignment of error upon a final judgment, must be dismissed. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551 (28 S. E. 382), and cit. Under this ruling, the assignment of error upon the final judgment of the presiding judge in the instant bill of exceptions is too general.

2. There being no sufficient assignment of error upon any final judgment in the case, the exceptions pendente lite to a judgment striking certain parts of the defendant’s answer can not be considered.

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodioorth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. Where a cause involving questions both of law and. fact is adjudicated by the judge without the intervention of a jury, and the trial results in a finding in favor of the plaintiff, and the judgment of the trial court is attacked because contrary to law, the exception should specify wherein it is contrary to law. Groover v. Inman, 60 Ga. 407 (5). Where a bill of exceptions fails so to specify, the assignment of error is too general, and the bill of exceptions, if it contain no other assignment of error upon a final judgment, must be dismissed. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551 (28 S. E. 382), and cit. Under this ruling, the assignment of error upon the final judgment of the presiding judge in the instant bill of exceptions is too general.

2. There being no sufficient assignment of error upon any final judgment in the case, the exceptions pendente lite to a judgment striking certain parts of the defendant’s answer can not be considered.

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodioorth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E. 433, 37 Ga. App. 688, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peck-v-harris-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack