Streetman v. Board of Education

Supreme Court of Georgia

Streetman v. Board of Education

136 S.E. 408, 163 Ga. 512, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 18

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 13, 1927

DocketNo. 5655

StatusPublished

This text of 136 S.E. 408 (Streetman v. Board of Education) 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

Streetman v. Board of Education, 136 S.E. 408, 163 Ga. 512, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 18 (Ga. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

The bill of exceptions in this case is taken to the refusal to grant an interlocutory injunction. Numerous affidavits submitted by the petitioners and by the defendant were introduced in evidence at .the hearing. In such a case the affidavits used on the hearing of the application “must be brought up in the bill of exceptions; or be attached as exhibits to the bill of exceptions and [513]*513duly identified by tlie presiding judge; or be included in a brief of the evidence approved and made a part of the record, and thus brought to this court.” That rule was not complied with in this case. On page 3 of the bill of exceptions] and immediately preceding the certificate to the bill of exceptions, is the following entry signed by the trial judge:

“Identification of Exhibits by Judge. The foregoing exhibits from A to N, contained on pages 5 to 26 inclusive, is hereby identified as all the affidavits and petition and answer used as evidence by both sides, the plaintiffs and defendants in this case. This the 15th day of Sept., 1926. [Signed] W. L. Hodges, Judge S. C. N C.” After the certificate there are numerous affidavits marked exhibits “A,” “B,” “C,” etc., covering pages five to twenty-five, inclusive, of the record, but they are not identified by the judge’s certificate, nor in any other way identified. Besides this, as appears from the bill of exceptions, there was a large number of affidavits introduced by the defendant. These are not identified in any way, and were manifestly not referred to in the certificate set forth above which was signed by the judge. Consequently the evidence material to a consideration of the errors complained of is not lawfully before this court in such manner that it can be considered. And inasmuch as the determination of the question as to whether the court below erred in refusing the injunction can be determined only after consideration of the evidence, this court can not adjudicate that any error was committed, or that there should be any judgment of reversal. Roberts v. City of Cairo, 133 Ga. 642 (66 S. E. 938); Rushing v. DeLoach, 149 Ga. 483 (100 S. E. 571); Caldwell v. Sturdivant, 155 Ga. 590 (118 S. E. 39), and the numerous cases there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beck, P. J.

The bill of exceptions in this case is taken to the refusal to grant an interlocutory injunction. Numerous affidavits submitted by the petitioners and by the defendant were introduced in evidence at .the hearing. In such a case the affidavits used on the hearing of the application “must be brought up in the bill of exceptions; or be attached as exhibits to the bill of exceptions and [513]*513duly identified by tlie presiding judge; or be included in a brief of the evidence approved and made a part of the record, and thus brought to this court.” That rule was not complied with in this case. On page 3 of the bill of exceptions] and immediately preceding the certificate to the bill of exceptions, is the following entry signed by the trial judge:

“Identification of Exhibits by Judge. The foregoing exhibits from A to N, contained on pages 5 to 26 inclusive, is hereby identified as all the affidavits and petition and answer used as evidence by both sides, the plaintiffs and defendants in this case. This the 15th day of Sept., 1926. [Signed] W. L. Hodges, Judge S. C. N C.” After the certificate there are numerous affidavits marked exhibits “A,” “B,” “C,” etc., covering pages five to twenty-five, inclusive, of the record, but they are not identified by the judge’s certificate, nor in any other way identified. Besides this, as appears from the bill of exceptions, there was a large number of affidavits introduced by the defendant. These are not identified in any way, and were manifestly not referred to in the certificate set forth above which was signed by the judge. Consequently the evidence material to a consideration of the errors complained of is not lawfully before this court in such manner that it can be considered. And inasmuch as the determination of the question as to whether the court below erred in refusing the injunction can be determined only after consideration of the evidence, this court can not adjudicate that any error was committed, or that there should be any judgment of reversal. Roberts v. City of Cairo, 133 Ga. 642 (66 S. E. 938); Rushing v. DeLoach, 149 Ga. 483 (100 S. E. 571); Caldwell v. Sturdivant, 155 Ga. 590 (118 S. E. 39), and the numerous cases there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 408, 163 Ga. 512, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/streetman-v-board-of-education-ga-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack