Pierce v. Felts

92 S.E. 212, 146 Ga. 716, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 464
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 12, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 212 (Pierce v. Felts) 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
Pierce v. Felts, 92 S.E. 212, 146 Ga. 716, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 464 (Ga. 1917).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

The bill of exceptions assigned error on a judgment refusing to vacate a former order appointing a temporary receiver. It recited that the ground of the motion to vacate was “that no sufficient legal grounds existed for its establishment or its continuance.” Certain parts of the record wore specified as “material to an understanding of the errors complained of,” after which were the words, “with the evidence introduced at the hearing.” The bill of exceptions did not otherwise refer to any evidence submitted at the hearing. But the clerk transmitted copies of certain affidavits and other documentary evidence, which were not made a part of the bill of exceptions by reference or exhibits, nor were they set forth in any brief of evidence approved by the court. The judge certified that the bill of exceptions was true, and that it specified all of the record material to a clear understanding of the errors complained of, and ordered that the parts of the record so specified be transmitted to the Supreme Court; but the certificate contained no reference to any evidence introduced at the hearing. Held, that even if a writ of error would lie to a judgment of the character above stated (Stubbs v. McConnell, 119 Ga. 21), it affirmatively appears from the bill of exceptions that the case was one involving consideration of evidence; and no evidence having been brought up so authenticated as to authorize its consideration by this court (Glover v. State, 128 Ga. 1, 57 S. E. 101; Eubank v. Eastman, 120 Ga. 1048, 48 S. E. 426), the judgment of the trial court will be

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Etheridge v. Cashin
140 S.E.2d 927 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Rooks v. White
129 S.E.2d 359 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Whitner v. Whitner
60 S.E.2d 464 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
White v. Hornsby
12 S.E.2d 875 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Harper v. Atlanta & West Point Railroad
125 S.E. 885 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
McBurnette v. Huff
114 S.E. 578 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Kunkel v. Tippins
108 S.E. 46 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Scott v. Wage Earners Loan & Investment Co.
94 S.E. 1021 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 S.E. 212, 146 Ga. 716, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-felts-ga-1917.