Peebles v. Windham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Peebles v. Windham

167 S.E. 550, 46 Ga. App. 285, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 31

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 21, 1933

Docket22536

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 S.E. 550 (Peebles v. Windham) 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

Peebles v. Windham, 167 S.E. 550, 46 Ga. App. 285, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 31 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

This being a suit upon a note, where the defendant pleaded payment and by an amendment to the plea prayed for the cancellation of the note and also of a deed to secure the indebtedness represented by the note which he had executed to the plaintiff, and the jury found for the defendant and a judgment was rendered decreeing a cancellation of the deed to secure debt and the note, the case was a proceeding in equity, and, as provided in the constitution of this State as amended by an amendment ratified in 1916, the Supreme Court, and not the Court of Appeals, has jurisdiction to entertain a bill of exceptions to a judgment overruling a motion for a new trial filed by the plaintiff. The motion of the defendant in error to transfer this case to the Supreme Court is hereby sustained.

So ordered.

Jenkins, P. J., and Button, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

This being a suit upon a note, where the defendant pleaded payment and by an amendment to the plea prayed for the cancellation of the note and also of a deed to secure the indebtedness represented by the note which he had executed to the plaintiff, and the jury found for the defendant and a judgment was rendered decreeing a cancellation of the deed to secure debt and the note, the case was a proceeding in equity, and, as provided in the constitution of this State as amended by an amendment ratified in 1916, the Supreme Court, and not the Court of Appeals, has jurisdiction to entertain a bill of exceptions to a judgment overruling a motion for a new trial filed by the plaintiff. The motion of the defendant in error to transfer this case to the Supreme Court is hereby sustained.

So ordered.

Jenkins, P. J., and Button, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E. 550, 46 Ga. App. 285, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peebles-v-windham-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack