Weathers v. Paga Mining Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Weathers v. Paga Mining Co.

94 S.E. 579, 147 Ga. 463, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 262

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 14, 1917

DocketNo. 169

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 579 (Weathers v. Paga Mining Co.) 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

Weathers v. Paga Mining Co., 94 S.E. 579, 147 Ga. 463, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 262 (Ga. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

George, J.

1. It was ruled in Moss v. Birch, 102 Ga. 556 (28 S. E. 623), that “Where in a bill of exceptions the only error assigned is that the presiding judge refused to grant an injunction, and the evidence [464]*464upon which such refusal was had, being documentary, is set out in full in the bill of exceptions, without any attempt whatever to brief the same having been made as required by the act approved November 13, 1889, but including immaterial and unnecessary portions of many of the documents, according to repeated rulings of this court the evidence so incorporated in the bill of exceptions will not be considered; and there being no question for decision which arises on the pleadings in the case,” the judgment will be affirmed. This ruling was followed in Moreland v. Walker, 141 Ga. 541 (81 S. E. 854).

No. 169. December 14, 1917.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Eite. Bartow superior court. December 9, 1916.

William T. Townsend, for plaintiff in error. John T. Norris, Finley & Henson, and Paul F. Akin, contra.

2. Where the evidence on an interlocutory hearing, consisting of affidavits and documents, is by the presiding judge ordered filed as a part of the record, and is so filed, and where the bill of exceptions specifies such affidavits and documents as material to an understanding of the errors complained of, and such affidavits and documents are merely brought to this court as a part of the transcript of record under the certificate of the clerk, but no attempt whatever has been made to brief the same, or to eliminate the immaterial and unnecessary portions thereof, the same will not be considered by this court. A consideration of the evidence submitted on the interlocutory hearing being necessary for the determination of the only questions involved in the case, this court is unable to review the correctness of the final judgment upon the merits; and affirmance of the judgment of the court below must necessarily result.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

George, J.

1. It was ruled in Moss v. Birch, 102 Ga. 556 (28 S. E. 623), that “Where in a bill of exceptions the only error assigned is that the presiding judge refused to grant an injunction, and the evidence [464]*464upon which such refusal was had, being documentary, is set out in full in the bill of exceptions, without any attempt whatever to brief the same having been made as required by the act approved November 13, 1889, but including immaterial and unnecessary portions of many of the documents, according to repeated rulings of this court the evidence so incorporated in the bill of exceptions will not be considered; and there being no question for decision which arises on the pleadings in the case,” the judgment will be affirmed. This ruling was followed in Moreland v. Walker, 141 Ga. 541 (81 S. E. 854).

No. 169. December 14, 1917.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Eite. Bartow superior court. December 9, 1916.

William T. Townsend, for plaintiff in error. John T. Norris, Finley & Henson, and Paul F. Akin, contra.

2. Where the evidence on an interlocutory hearing, consisting of affidavits and documents, is by the presiding judge ordered filed as a part of the record, and is so filed, and where the bill of exceptions specifies such affidavits and documents as material to an understanding of the errors complained of, and such affidavits and documents are merely brought to this court as a part of the transcript of record under the certificate of the clerk, but no attempt whatever has been made to brief the same, or to eliminate the immaterial and unnecessary portions thereof, the same will not be considered by this court. A consideration of the evidence submitted on the interlocutory hearing being necessary for the determination of the only questions involved in the case, this court is unable to review the correctness of the final judgment upon the merits; and affirmance of the judgment of the court below must necessarily result.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E. 579, 147 Ga. 463, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weathers-v-paga-mining-co-ga-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack