Walker v. Howland

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Walker v. Howland

87 S.E. 813, 17 Ga. App. 548, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 772

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 28, 1916

Docket6604

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 813 (Walker v. Howland) 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

Walker v. Howland, 87 S.E. 813, 17 Ga. App. 548, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 772 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. Where a case brought to this court is not one in which a judgment on a motion for a new trial is to be reviewed, the plaintiff in error shall plainly and specifically set forth the errors alleged to have been committed.

2. In the absence of a general exception to a final judgment, specific assignments of error on antecedent rulings will not suffice to give this court jurisdiction.

3. No exception is taken to the final judgment in this case, and therefore this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the bill of exceptions. See Lyndon v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co., 129 Ga. 353 (58 S. E. 1047); Stewart v. Marietta Trust & Banking Co., 129 Ga. 417 (59 S. E. 231); Morris v. Dougherty, 132 Ga. 346 (63 S. E. 1114); Mertins v. Pritchard, 135 Ga. 643 (70 S. E. 328); Simmons v. Peagler, 7 Ga. App. 252 (66 S. E. 629); Ox Breeches Mfg. Co. v. Bird, 1 Ga. App. 40 (57 S. E. 975); Anderson v. Hall, 3 Ga. App. 555 (60 S. E. 294).

Writ of error dismissed.

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

Wade, J.

1. Where a case brought to this court is not one in which a judgment on a motion for a new trial is to be reviewed, the plaintiff in error shall plainly and specifically set forth the errors alleged to have been committed.

2. In the absence of a general exception to a final judgment, specific assignments of error on antecedent rulings will not suffice to give this court jurisdiction.

3. No exception is taken to the final judgment in this case, and therefore this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the bill of exceptions. See Lyndon v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co., 129 Ga. 353 (58 S. E. 1047); Stewart v. Marietta Trust & Banking Co., 129 Ga. 417 (59 S. E. 231); Morris v. Dougherty, 132 Ga. 346 (63 S. E. 1114); Mertins v. Pritchard, 135 Ga. 643 (70 S. E. 328); Simmons v. Peagler, 7 Ga. App. 252 (66 S. E. 629); Ox Breeches Mfg. Co. v. Bird, 1 Ga. App. 40 (57 S. E. 975); Anderson v. Hall, 3 Ga. App. 555 (60 S. E. 294).

Writ of error dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 813, 17 Ga. App. 548, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-howland-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack