Willingham v. Cedartown Supply Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Willingham v. Cedartown Supply Co.

75 S.E. 823, 11 Ga. App. 464, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 56

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 17, 1912

Docket4213

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 S.E. 823 (Willingham v. Cedartown Supply 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

Willingham v. Cedartown Supply Co., 75 S.E. 823, 11 Ga. App. 464, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 56 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

’ This was a suit on a promissory note, in which the plaintiff prayed for a general judgment against the defendant, and a special judgment against certain real estate alleged to have been conveyed by him as security, for principal, interest, and attorney’s fees as stipulated in the note. No defense was filed, and a judgment was entered by default, for principal, interest, and attorney’s fees; setting up a special lien on the described property. The bill of exceptions recites these facts, and makes the following assignment of error: “The defendant, W. B. Willingham, excepts to the' said judgment, and assigns the same as error.” A motion to dismiss the writ of error was made, on the ground that there was no sufficient assignment of error. Held: Under the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court the motion must be granted. The language used is entirely too general. There are several things involved in the judgment rendered by the court below, and the assignment should be specific enough to clearly indicate the thing or things complained cf. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551 (28 S. É. 382), and cases cited; Kimball v. Williams, 108 Ga. 812 (33 S. E. 994); Patterson v. Beck, 133 Ga. 701 (66 S. E. 911), and cases cited. , Writ of error dismissed.

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

Hill, C. J.

’ This was a suit on a promissory note, in which the plaintiff prayed for a general judgment against the defendant, and a special judgment against certain real estate alleged to have been conveyed by him as security, for principal, interest, and attorney’s fees as stipulated in the note. No defense was filed, and a judgment was entered by default, for principal, interest, and attorney’s fees; setting up a special lien on the described property. The bill of exceptions recites these facts, and makes the following assignment of error: “The defendant, W. B. Willingham, excepts to the' said judgment, and assigns the same as error.” A motion to dismiss the writ of error was made, on the ground that there was no sufficient assignment of error. Held: Under the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court the motion must be granted. The language used is entirely too general. There are several things involved in the judgment rendered by the court below, and the assignment should be specific enough to clearly indicate the thing or things complained cf. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551 (28 S. É. 382), and cases cited; Kimball v. Williams, 108 Ga. 812 (33 S. E. 994); Patterson v. Beck, 133 Ga. 701 (66 S. E. 911), and cases cited. , Writ of error dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 S.E. 823, 11 Ga. App. 464, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willingham-v-cedartown-supply-co-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack