Sistrunk v. Love

77 S.E. 21, 139 Ga. 240, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 392
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 16, 1913·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

The only assignment of error in the bill of exceptions is upon the overruling of the motion for new trial. It appears from the record that the merits of the motion for new trial were not considered by the trial judge, but that the motion, at the instance of the respondents thereto, was dismissed upon the ground that no brief of the evidence had been tendered or filed at the time of the hearing, of the motion. The recital in the bill of exceptions that the motion for a new trial was overruled must yield to the record, which affirmatively shows that no such judgment .was rendered. Southern Railway Co. v. Flemister, 120 Ga. 524 (48 S. E. 160), and cases cited; Georgia etc. R. Co. v. Pritchard, 123 Ga. 320 (51 S. E. 424); Evans v. Mayor etc. of Forsyth, 126 Ga. 589 (55 S. E. 490); James v. Cooledge, 129 Ga. 860 (60 S. E. 182).

As no ruling made or judgment rendered by the trial court is brought under review by the writ of error, the motion made by defendants to dismiss the same must be sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Sistrunk v. Love, 77 S.E. 21, 139 Ga. 240, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 392 (Ga. 1913).

77 S.E. 21 (Sistrunk v. Love) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hall v. Faulk
133 S.E.2d 14 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963)
Johnson v. Sherrer
29 S.E.2d 581 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)