Tidwell v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad

93 S.E. 511, 20 Ga. App. 826, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1111
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 13, 1917·No. 8911·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This case is here on a direct bill of exceptions in which the only assignment of error is that the court erred in awarding a nonsuit. No proper brief of the evidence is in the bill of exceptions or made a part of the record. What purports to be a brief of the evidence contains all the evidence in extenso, both material and immaterial, and also all the testimony which the court excluded from evidence, including objections thereto and argument of counsel thereon. The judgment of the lower court must therefore be affirmed. Civil Code (1910), §§ 6140, 6141; Cunningham v. Strom, 8 Ga. App. 87 (68 S. E. 616); Albany & Northern Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 6 Ga. App. 270 (64 S. E. 1114); Huntley Mfg. Co. v. Nixon Grocery Co., 6 Ga. App. 46 (64 S. E. 79); Bunn v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 18 Ga. App. 66 (88 S. E. 798).

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and George and Luke, JJ., concur.

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

Tidwell v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad, 93 S.E. 511, 20 Ga. App. 826, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1111 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

93 S.E. 511 (Tidwell v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carnes v. Pittman
70 S.E.2d 774 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Clay v. Austell School District
136 S.E. 540 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Jackson
95 S.E. 717 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Thompson v. Marietta Trust & Banking Co.
94 S.E. 631 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)