Legal Opinion

Hayes Chunn v. Holland

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Decided March 29, 1930PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This was an action for damages caused by the collision of two trucks, and resulted in a judgment for $154.05 in favor of the plaintiff below, Holland. Hayes Chunn appealed in error.

We cannot entertain the assignments of error for the reason that the motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were not made a part of the bill of exceptions and were not copied into the minutes of the court.

A motion for a new trial not spread on the minutes of the court nor included in the bill of exceptions forms no part of the record even though copied into the transcript of the record. Chattanooga Iron…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Rhoton v. BurtonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1925
  2. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. SmithTennessee Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Chattanooga Iron & Coal Co. v. HanssardTennessee Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Shelton v. WadeTennessee Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Guy v. Stemberg-Rainey Hardware Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1927

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Chico v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Frierson v. SmithsonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1937
  3. Powell v. BarnardCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API