Scott v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Scott v. Davis

95 S.E. 332, 22 Ga. App. 32, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 122

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 13, 1918

Docket9316

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 332 (Scott v. Davis) 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

Scott v. Davis, 95 S.E. 332, 22 Ga. App. 32, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 122 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Harwell, J.

This is the second appearance of this case in the appellate courts, it having been carried to the Supreme Court when dismissed on demurrer. Davis v. Scott, 141 Ga. 33 (80 S. E. 284). It is a suit for deceit, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The motion for a new trial is upon the general grounds. The brief of evidence is apparently the full stenographic report reduced to narrative form with no effort at abridgment. There is in fact on the last page of the brief a certifícate of the court stenographer that “The above and folegoing 25 pages constitute a true and correct copy of the evidence, reduced to narrative form, produced upon the (rial of the above stated case.” Apparently all [33]*33of the objections to testimony, and arguments of counsel thereon; and the rulings of the court, and discussions between the court and counsel on other phases of the case are embodied verbatim et literatim in the brief. This immaterial matter constitutes nearly one third of the brief. This is not a legal brief of the evidence, and the assignment of error based upon thé general grounds of the motion will not be passed upon. Lanham v. Presley, 7 Ga. App. 839 (68 S. E. 448), and citations; Albany & Northern Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 6 Ga. App. 270 (64 S. E. 1114); Hitchcock v. Latham, 97 Ga. 253 (2) (22 S. E. 997); Jones v. West View Cemetery, 103 Ga. 560 (39 S. E. 710); Graham v. City of Baxley, 117 Ga. 42 (2) (43 S. E. 405). “The Supreme Court will not review the evidence in a case when it is apparent that there has been no bona fide effort to brief the evidence as required by law, and when the document purporting to be a brief of the evidence is extensively interspersed with objections to testimony, statements, motions and arguments of counsel, rulings of the court, evidence to which objections were sustained, and also colloquies between counsel and the court. Equitable Mortgage Co. v. Bell, 115 Ga. 651 (43 S. E. 82); Graham v. Baxley, 117 Ga. 42 (43 S. E. 405); Wall v. Mercer, 119 Ga. 346 (46 S. E. 420). Wh^re, in such a case, no question-is presented for decision which can be determined without reference to the evidence, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.” McComb v. Hines, 123 Ga. 246 (51 S. E. 300).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J. and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Harwell, J.

This is the second appearance of this case in the appellate courts, it having been carried to the Supreme Court when dismissed on demurrer. Davis v. Scott, 141 Ga. 33 (80 S. E. 284). It is a suit for deceit, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The motion for a new trial is upon the general grounds. The brief of evidence is apparently the full stenographic report reduced to narrative form with no effort at abridgment. There is in fact on the last page of the brief a certifícate of the court stenographer that “The above and folegoing 25 pages constitute a true and correct copy of the evidence, reduced to narrative form, produced upon the (rial of the above stated case.” Apparently all [33]*33of the objections to testimony, and arguments of counsel thereon; and the rulings of the court, and discussions between the court and counsel on other phases of the case are embodied verbatim et literatim in the brief. This immaterial matter constitutes nearly one third of the brief. This is not a legal brief of the evidence, and the assignment of error based upon thé general grounds of the motion will not be passed upon. Lanham v. Presley, 7 Ga. App. 839 (68 S. E. 448), and citations; Albany & Northern Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 6 Ga. App. 270 (64 S. E. 1114); Hitchcock v. Latham, 97 Ga. 253 (2) (22 S. E. 997); Jones v. West View Cemetery, 103 Ga. 560 (39 S. E. 710); Graham v. City of Baxley, 117 Ga. 42 (2) (43 S. E. 405). “The Supreme Court will not review the evidence in a case when it is apparent that there has been no bona fide effort to brief the evidence as required by law, and when the document purporting to be a brief of the evidence is extensively interspersed with objections to testimony, statements, motions and arguments of counsel, rulings of the court, evidence to which objections were sustained, and also colloquies between counsel and the court. Equitable Mortgage Co. v. Bell, 115 Ga. 651 (43 S. E. 82); Graham v. Baxley, 117 Ga. 42 (43 S. E. 405); Wall v. Mercer, 119 Ga. 346 (46 S. E. 420). Wh^re, in such a case, no question-is presented for decision which can be determined without reference to the evidence, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.” McComb v. Hines, 123 Ga. 246 (51 S. E. 300).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J. and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 332, 22 Ga. App. 32, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-davis-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack