Wills v. Young

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wills v. Young

83 S.E. 275, 15 Ga. App. 352, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 110

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 4, 1914

Docket5563

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 83 S.E. 275 (Wills v. Young) 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

Wills v. Young, 83 S.E. 275, 15 Ga. App. 352, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 110 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, O. J.

1. Since the third paragraph of the defendant’s answer attempted to set off an alleged right of action ex delicto against the plaintiff’s action, which was a proceeding ex contractu, it was properly-stricken upon demurrer.

2. Rulings upon a demurrer are not proper subject-matter for a ground of a motion for a new trial. Mayor &c. of Dublin v. Dudley, 2 Ga. App. 762 (59 S. E. 84), and cases cited.

3. “What purports to be a brief of evidence in this case, being extensively interspersed with statements and arguments of counsel, and colloquies between counsel and the court, and also with statements by . . the court, none of which in anywise throws any light upon the testimony in the case, does not constitute such a brief of evidence as is required by law.” The merits of the assignments of error upon the court’s rulings on evidence, and upon the direction of the verdict, as well as the usual general grounds of the motion for a new trial, are in this case necessarily dependent upon the brief of evidence, and the judgment of the court below must therefore be affirmed, as this court will not consider such an alleged brief of evidence, and can not, without so doing, determine whether or not the court erred in the rulings complained of or in the direction of the verdict. Price v. High, 108 Ga. 145 (33 S. E. 956) ; Albany & Northern Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 6 Ga. App. 270 (64 S. E. 1114). Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

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

Russell, O. J.

1. Since the third paragraph of the defendant’s answer attempted to set off an alleged right of action ex delicto against the plaintiff’s action, which was a proceeding ex contractu, it was properly-stricken upon demurrer.

2. Rulings upon a demurrer are not proper subject-matter for a ground of a motion for a new trial. Mayor &c. of Dublin v. Dudley, 2 Ga. App. 762 (59 S. E. 84), and cases cited.

3. “What purports to be a brief of evidence in this case, being extensively interspersed with statements and arguments of counsel, and colloquies between counsel and the court, and also with statements by . . the court, none of which in anywise throws any light upon the testimony in the case, does not constitute such a brief of evidence as is required by law.” The merits of the assignments of error upon the court’s rulings on evidence, and upon the direction of the verdict, as well as the usual general grounds of the motion for a new trial, are in this case necessarily dependent upon the brief of evidence, and the judgment of the court below must therefore be affirmed, as this court will not consider such an alleged brief of evidence, and can not, without so doing, determine whether or not the court erred in the rulings complained of or in the direction of the verdict. Price v. High, 108 Ga. 145 (33 S. E. 956) ; Albany & Northern Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 6 Ga. App. 270 (64 S. E. 1114). Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 S.E. 275, 15 Ga. App. 352, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wills-v-young-gactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack