Ulmer v. Ulmer

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ulmer v. Ulmer

179 S.E. 748, 51 Ga. App. 177, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 619

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 24, 1935

Docket24633

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 748 (Ulmer v. Ulmer) 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

Ulmer v. Ulmer, 179 S.E. 748, 51 Ga. App. 177, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where a case involving questions of law and of fact is submitted to a judge, without the intervention of a jury, and to the judgment rendered the losing party, without moving for a new trial, brings the case to this court by a direct bill of exceptions, in which he excepts to the judgment and “assigns error thereon as being contrary to law, and says that the court erred in awarding any of said sum to Mrs. Irene Ulmer,” the assignment of error is too general and does not comply with the requirements of section 6-901 of the Code of 1933, that the bill of exceptions “shall specify plainly the decision complained of and the alleged error.” The exception should specify wherein the judgment was contrary to law. Groover v. Inman, 60 Ga. 406 (5); Greenwood v. Ledford, 46 Ga. App. 123 (166 S. E. 839).

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

Maolntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. Jeff A. Pope, for plaintiffs. W. II. DucJcworbh, for defendants.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where a case involving questions of law and of fact is submitted to a judge, without the intervention of a jury, and to the judgment rendered the losing party, without moving for a new trial, brings the case to this court by a direct bill of exceptions, in which he excepts to the judgment and “assigns error thereon as being contrary to law, and says that the court erred in awarding any of said sum to Mrs. Irene Ulmer,” the assignment of error is too general and does not comply with the requirements of section 6-901 of the Code of 1933, that the bill of exceptions “shall specify plainly the decision complained of and the alleged error.” The exception should specify wherein the judgment was contrary to law. Groover v. Inman, 60 Ga. 406 (5); Greenwood v. Ledford, 46 Ga. App. 123 (166 S. E. 839).

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

Maolntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. Jeff A. Pope, for plaintiffs. W. II. DucJcworbh, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 748, 51 Ga. App. 177, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ulmer-v-ulmer-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack