Tom Hewitt Auto Auction Co. v. Vickers

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tom Hewitt Auto Auction Co. v. Vickers

137 S.E.2d 403, 109 Ga. App. 687, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 957

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 7, 1964

Docket40691

StatusPublished

This text of 137 S.E.2d 403 (Tom Hewitt Auto Auction Co. v. Vickers) 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

Tom Hewitt Auto Auction Co. v. Vickers, 137 S.E.2d 403, 109 Ga. App. 687, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 957 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

1. Where the only exception is to the refusal of the trial court to grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (Code Ann. § 110-113), and it appears that the brief of evidence is a stenographic transcript of the trial (Code Ann. § 70-301), and it nowhere appears that such brief of evidence has been approved by the trial judge, such evidence cannot be considered by this court. Porter v. State, 56 Ga. 530; DeLoach v. Planters &c. Mut. Fire Assn., 122 Ga. 385 (1) (50 SE 141); Phillips v. Taber, 83 Ga. 565, 566 (6) (10 SE 270).

2. The record does not disclose that said transcript was attached to the motion and referred to therein so as to have the implied approval of the trial judge when he entertained the motion. See Pope v. Toombs, 20 Ga. 762 (1).

3. It follows, therefore, that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed. Ansley v. Davidson & Co., 110 Ga. 279 (34 SE 611).

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur. Franklin, Barham, Coleman, Elliott & Blackburn, Ed. G. Bar-ham, for plaintiff in error. W. D. Knight, contra.

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

Pannell, Judge.

1. Where the only exception is to the refusal of the trial court to grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (Code Ann. § 110-113), and it appears that the brief of evidence is a stenographic transcript of the trial (Code Ann. § 70-301), and it nowhere appears that such brief of evidence has been approved by the trial judge, such evidence cannot be considered by this court. Porter v. State, 56 Ga. 530; DeLoach v. Planters &c. Mut. Fire Assn., 122 Ga. 385 (1) (50 SE 141); Phillips v. Taber, 83 Ga. 565, 566 (6) (10 SE 270).

2. The record does not disclose that said transcript was attached to the motion and referred to therein so as to have the implied approval of the trial judge when he entertained the motion. See Pope v. Toombs, 20 Ga. 762 (1).

3. It follows, therefore, that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed. Ansley v. Davidson & Co., 110 Ga. 279 (34 SE 611).

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur. Franklin, Barham, Coleman, Elliott & Blackburn, Ed. G. Bar-ham, for plaintiff in error. W. D. Knight, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.E.2d 403, 109 Ga. App. 687, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tom-hewitt-auto-auction-co-v-vickers-gactapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack