Shaine & Son v. Block

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Shaine & Son v. Block

111 S.E. 79, 28 Ga. App. 329, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 487

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 7, 1922

Docket13100

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 79 (Shaine & Son v. Block) 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

Shaine & Son v. Block, 111 S.E. 79, 28 Ga. App. 329, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 487 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, 0. J.

1. Where no proper brief of evidence is sent up, this court cannot decide any question which is dependent upon a consideration of the evidence. “ If all the assignments of error are of that class, a judgment of affirmance will result. If there are assignments of error, such as rulings on demurrers, or the like, which do not involve a consideration of the evidence, they may be passed on.” Crumbley v. Brook, 135 Ga. 723 (70 S. E. 655).

2. What purports to be a brief of the evidence in the instant case is evidently a copy of the stenographic report of the proceedings therein, and contains all the questions propounded by counsel on both sides to the • witnesses, the answers thereto, the objections of counsel to the admission of evidence, and the rulings of the court thereon. Such a paper is not a substantial compliance with the law as to the bringing of a brief of evidence to this court; and as all the grounds of error involve a consideration of the evidence, an affirmance must result.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Complaint; from city court of Greensboro — W. H. Fisher, judge pro hae vice. October 20, 1921.

J. A. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. J. G. Faust, contra.

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

Broyles, 0. J.

1. Where no proper brief of evidence is sent up, this court cannot decide any question which is dependent upon a consideration of the evidence. “ If all the assignments of error are of that class, a judgment of affirmance will result. If there are assignments of error, such as rulings on demurrers, or the like, which do not involve a consideration of the evidence, they may be passed on.” Crumbley v. Brook, 135 Ga. 723 (70 S. E. 655).

2. What purports to be a brief of the evidence in the instant case is evidently a copy of the stenographic report of the proceedings therein, and contains all the questions propounded by counsel on both sides to the • witnesses, the answers thereto, the objections of counsel to the admission of evidence, and the rulings of the court thereon. Such a paper is not a substantial compliance with the law as to the bringing of a brief of evidence to this court; and as all the grounds of error involve a consideration of the evidence, an affirmance must result.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Complaint; from city court of Greensboro — W. H. Fisher, judge pro hae vice. October 20, 1921.

J. A. Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. J. G. Faust, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 79, 28 Ga. App. 329, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaine-son-v-block-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack