Waldrip v. Slagle

Supreme Court of Georgia

Waldrip v. Slagle

131 S.E. 53, 161 Ga. 464, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 377

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 19, 1925

DocketNo. 5128

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 131 S.E. 53 (Waldrip v. Slagle) 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

Waldrip v. Slagle, 131 S.E. 53, 161 Ga. 464, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 377 (Ga. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Hines, J.

The bill of exceptions in this case recites that upon the hearing in the court below certain oral and documentary evidence was introduced by the parties, and that a true and correct brief of 'said evidence is attached to and made a part of the bill of exceptions as exhibit A thereto. This exhibit follows the certificate to the bill of exceptions, and is not identified by the signature of the judge; and this was not a correct mode of bringing the evidence to this court. Colquitt v. Solomon, 61 Ga. 492; Roberts v. Cairo, 133 Ga. 642 (66 S. E. 938); Rushing v. DeLoach, 149 Ga. 483 (100 S. E. 571). Where the bill of exceptions shows on its face that the evidence material to a consideration of the errors assigned is not before this court in such a manner that it can be considered, and the questions raised by the assignments of error necessarily involve a consideration of the evidence, this court can not adjudicate that any error was committed, or that there should be a judgment of reversal. Roberts v. Cairo, supra; Caldwell v. Sturdivant, 155 Ga. 590 (118 S. E. 39).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. G. C. Pittman, for plaintiffs in error. J. M. Lang, contra.

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

Hines, J.

The bill of exceptions in this case recites that upon the hearing in the court below certain oral and documentary evidence was introduced by the parties, and that a true and correct brief of 'said evidence is attached to and made a part of the bill of exceptions as exhibit A thereto. This exhibit follows the certificate to the bill of exceptions, and is not identified by the signature of the judge; and this was not a correct mode of bringing the evidence to this court. Colquitt v. Solomon, 61 Ga. 492; Roberts v. Cairo, 133 Ga. 642 (66 S. E. 938); Rushing v. DeLoach, 149 Ga. 483 (100 S. E. 571). Where the bill of exceptions shows on its face that the evidence material to a consideration of the errors assigned is not before this court in such a manner that it can be considered, and the questions raised by the assignments of error necessarily involve a consideration of the evidence, this court can not adjudicate that any error was committed, or that there should be a judgment of reversal. Roberts v. Cairo, supra; Caldwell v. Sturdivant, 155 Ga. 590 (118 S. E. 39).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. G. C. Pittman, for plaintiffs in error. J. M. Lang, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E. 53, 161 Ga. 464, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldrip-v-slagle-ga-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack