Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Smiley v. Smiley

Smiley v. Smiley

87 S.E. 668, 144 Ga. 546, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 766
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 13, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by47 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 668 (Smiley v. Smiley) 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
Smiley v. Smiley, 87 S.E. 668, 144 Ga. 546, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 766 (Ga. 1916).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

Exceptions pendente lite, though duly allowed and ordered filed as a part of the record, upon which no error was originally assigned in the main bill of exceptions, and upon which counsel made no assignment of error before the argument of the case, will not be considered by this court. Jones v. Kagan, 136 Ga. 653 (7), 655 (71 S. E. 1098); Atlantic & Birmingham R. Co. v. Penny, 119 Ga. 479 (46 S. E. 675); Civil Code, § 6138.

2. Grounds of a motion for new trial which are incomplete, and can not be understood without resorting to an examination of the brief of evidence, fail to present any question for decision. Head v. State, 144 Ga. 383 (87 S. E. 273); Sims v. Sims, 131 Ga. 262 (62 S. E. 192).

3. A new trial will not be granted on account of newly discovered evidence, where it is not made to appear by affidavit of the movant and each of his counsel that they did not know of the existence of such evidence before the tidal, and that the same could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence. Civil Code, §§ C085-6086.

4. To entitle a plaintiff to a decree for specific performance of a parol contract for the sale of land, the contract must be first established with reasonable certainty, and the consideration claimed to have been paid must be clearly and satisfactorily proved to have been paid in pursuance of that contract; otliei-wise specific performance of the alleged contract should be refused. Shropshire v. Brown, 45 Ga. 175.

(a) The evidence in this case being insufficient to show the terms of the alleged parol contract for the sale of the land, a verdict for the plaintiffs was unauthorized.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices conew, except Fish, O. J., absent. Specific performance. Before Judge Sheppard. Liberty superior court. Au-S11^ 12, 1914. W. B. Stubbs and Parker & Walker, for plaintiff in error. W. C. Hodges and Paul E. Seabrook, contra.

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

Related

Davis v. Phillips
151 S.E.2d 810 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Meeks v. Douglas
146 S.E.2d 127 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Keith v. Darby
122 S.E.2d 463 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Ware v. Martin
70 S.E.2d 446 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1952)
Taylor v. Cook
64 S.E.2d 72 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
Cawthon v. McCord
63 S.E.2d 287 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Hulgan v. Gledhill
61 S.E.2d 473 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Barrett v. Dodd
59 S.E.2d 395 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Verdery v. Campbell
46 S.E.2d 66 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Barnett v. Henry
37 S.E.2d 340 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Parsons v. Georgia Power Company
21 S.E.2d 257 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
McIntire v. McQuade
9 S.E.2d 633 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Tilley v. King
9 S.E.2d 670 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Giles v. Poppell
5 S.E.2d 710 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Reece v. State
3 S.E.2d 229 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Allen v. E. Mason Roberts Enterprises
181 S.E. 578 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Adams v. State
179 S.E. 223 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
McEachin v. South Georgia Trust Co.
147 S.E. 390 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Bank of LaGrange v. Commercial Credit Co.
121 S.E. 142 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Kennedy v. Walker
120 S.E. 105 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 S.E. 668, 144 Ga. 546, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smiley-v-smiley-ga-1916.