H. Marshall & Co. v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Georgia
When this case was called in its order for a hearing, counsel for the defendant moved to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that the bill of exceptions itself furnished evidence, that it did not contain all the evidence necessary to a clear understanding of the errors complained of. The motion was predicated upon the following statement of facts, viz : The decision excepted to was made upon an application for an injunction.
Read the full summary
When this case was called in its order for a hearing, counsel for the defendant moved to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that the bill of exceptions itself furnished evidence, that it did not contain all the evidence necessary to a clear understanding of the errors complained of. The motion was predicated upon the following statement of facts, viz : The decision excepted to was made upon an application for an injunction. The evidence before the Judge consisted of the bill, and the answer, together with various affidavits produced both by complainant and defendant, and also some…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court. —
Jenkins, J. delivering the opinion.
When this case was called for trial, counsel for defendant in error moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reasons appearing in the statement. Counsel for plaintiff in error did not waive the evidence alleged in that motion to have come irregularly before this Court, but insisted that it was regularly here, and that he had a right to use it.
Before entering upon the argument of the motion to dismiss, counsel on both sides agreed to argue the motion and the bill of exceptions together — thus presenting at once to the view of the. Court the alleged…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kutash v. GluckmanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
- Reber v. PearsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Crownfield v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1915