Vaughan v. Little-Ward Furniture Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Vaughan v. Little-Ward Furniture Co.

166 S.E. 670, 46 Ga. App. 26, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 13

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1932

Docket22118

StatusPublished

This text of 166 S.E. 670 (Vaughan v. Little-Ward Furniture Co.) 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

Vaughan v. Little-Ward Furniture Co., 166 S.E. 670, 46 Ga. App. 26, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 13 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooper, J.

1. The traverse to the sheriff’s return of service not being specified as material to the issues sought to be raised, nor included in the record before this court, and this court having, on its own motion, directed the cleric of the trial court to transmit the traverse to this court, and the cleric having advised that such paper has been lost, this court is unable to entertain the assignment of error in the bill of exceptions "that the court refused to hear any evidence on the traverse.” Neither does it appear what evidence was offered by the defendant and rejected by the court.

2. The remaining assignments of error in the bill of exceptions, not having been argued or insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., not presiding. A. J. Griffin, for plaintiff in error. J. B. G. Logan, contra.

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

Hooper, J.

1. The traverse to the sheriff’s return of service not being specified as material to the issues sought to be raised, nor included in the record before this court, and this court having, on its own motion, directed the cleric of the trial court to transmit the traverse to this court, and the cleric having advised that such paper has been lost, this court is unable to entertain the assignment of error in the bill of exceptions "that the court refused to hear any evidence on the traverse.” Neither does it appear what evidence was offered by the defendant and rejected by the court.

2. The remaining assignments of error in the bill of exceptions, not having been argued or insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., not presiding. A. J. Griffin, for plaintiff in error. J. B. G. Logan, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 670, 46 Ga. App. 26, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughan-v-little-ward-furniture-co-gactapp-1932.