Vick v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Coolidge

Supreme Court of Georgia

Vick v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Coolidge

70 S.E.2d 764, 209 Ga. 77, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 416

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 12, 1952

Docket17840

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 70 S.E.2d 764 (Vick v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Coolidge) 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

Vick v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Coolidge, 70 S.E.2d 764, 209 Ga. 77, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 416 (Ga. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Head, Justice.

“Where no motion for a new trial is made, and a decree is attacked because contrary to law and evidence, the exception should specify wherein it is contrary to law.” Groover, Stubbs & Co. v. Inman, 60 Ga. 406, 407 (5). Where, under the record in a case, several assignments of error might be made on the judgment and decree of the court, such as that there were issues of fact which should have been submitted to a jury, or that the judgment was contrary to law for specified reasons, an exception to the decree as “being contrary to law,” is too indefinite to present any question for decision by this court. Cates v. Duncan, 180 Ga. 289 (179 S. E. 121). See also Higgins v. Cherokee Railroad, 73 Ga. 149 (2); Rodgers v. Black, 99 Ga. 142 (25 S. E. 20); Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551 (28 S. E. 382); Newberry v. Tenant, 121 Ga. 561 (49 S. E. 621); Greenfield v. Harvey, 191 Ga. 92, 95 (11 S. E. 2d, 776); City of Douglas v. Atlantic Coast Dine R. Co., 207 Ga. 690 (2) (64 S. E. 2d, 63); Kent v. Shannon, 209 Ga. 8 (70 S. E. 2d, 376); Ulmer v. Ulmer, 51 Ga. App. 177 (179 S. E. 748). The bill of exceptions in the instant case presents nothing for review.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Head, Justice.

“Where no motion for a new trial is made, and a decree is attacked because contrary to law and evidence, the exception should specify wherein it is contrary to law.” Groover, Stubbs & Co. v. Inman, 60 Ga. 406, 407 (5). Where, under the record in a case, several assignments of error might be made on the judgment and decree of the court, such as that there were issues of fact which should have been submitted to a jury, or that the judgment was contrary to law for specified reasons, an exception to the decree as “being contrary to law,” is too indefinite to present any question for decision by this court. Cates v. Duncan, 180 Ga. 289 (179 S. E. 121). See also Higgins v. Cherokee Railroad, 73 Ga. 149 (2); Rodgers v. Black, 99 Ga. 142 (25 S. E. 20); Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551 (28 S. E. 382); Newberry v. Tenant, 121 Ga. 561 (49 S. E. 621); Greenfield v. Harvey, 191 Ga. 92, 95 (11 S. E. 2d, 776); City of Douglas v. Atlantic Coast Dine R. Co., 207 Ga. 690 (2) (64 S. E. 2d, 63); Kent v. Shannon, 209 Ga. 8 (70 S. E. 2d, 376); Ulmer v. Ulmer, 51 Ga. App. 177 (179 S. E. 748). The bill of exceptions in the instant case presents nothing for review.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E.2d 764, 209 Ga. 77, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vick-v-farmers-merchants-bank-of-coolidge-ga-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack