Rich v. Piland

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rich v. Piland

265 S.E.2d 290, 153 Ga. App. 253, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1763

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 8, 1980

Docket58753

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 S.E.2d 290 (Rich v. Piland) 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

Rich v. Piland, 265 S.E.2d 290, 153 Ga. App. 253, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1763 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Judge.

In this pro se appeal to which the appellee has not responded, the defendant-appellant protests a judgment finding him indebted to the plaintiff on open account in the amount of $427.13. While certain "charges” of the trial court are enumerated as error, these appear instead to be the court’s findings of fact included in the order since the judgment was entered after a trial before the court without the intervention of a jury. The brief refers to the [254]*254testimony of witnesses but there is no transcript of any hearing. "Without the transcript we can not know what transpired. Consequently we can not say the the trial court’s findings are 'clearly erroneous.’ Code Ann. § 81A-152 (a).” Milam v. Milam, 240 Ga. 33, 34 (239 SE2d 361) (1977).

Argued October 3, 1979 Decided January 8, 1980. Bill Rich, pro se. Walter H. New, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, C. J., and Shulman, J., concur.

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

Carley, Judge.

In this pro se appeal to which the appellee has not responded, the defendant-appellant protests a judgment finding him indebted to the plaintiff on open account in the amount of $427.13. While certain "charges” of the trial court are enumerated as error, these appear instead to be the court’s findings of fact included in the order since the judgment was entered after a trial before the court without the intervention of a jury. The brief refers to the [254]*254testimony of witnesses but there is no transcript of any hearing. "Without the transcript we can not know what transpired. Consequently we can not say the the trial court’s findings are 'clearly erroneous.’ Code Ann. § 81A-152 (a).” Milam v. Milam, 240 Ga. 33, 34 (239 SE2d 361) (1977).

Argued October 3, 1979 Decided January 8, 1980. Bill Rich, pro se. Walter H. New, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, C. J., and Shulman, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 S.E.2d 290, 153 Ga. App. 253, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 1763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rich-v-piland-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack