Legal Opinion

Hirsch & Co. v. Dozier Lumber Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 3, 1907No. 372PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Attachment, from city court of Savannah — ’Judge Norwood. January 25, 1907.

1Opinion of the CourtHill, C. J.

1. The brief of the evidence in this ease is not a compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Civil Code, §§ 5484, 5488. There is apparently an attempt to abbreviate the oral testimony from the stenographic report, but many “immaterial questions and answers and parts thereof” are not stricken. The documentary testimony consisting of statements of accounts and numerous letters between the parties is given in full, with no attempt to brief the same. Hathcock v. McGouirk, 119 Ga. 973; Wall v. Mercer, Id. 346; George v. State, 123 Ga. 504; Smith v. State, 118 Ga. 83, and numerous decisions…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hathcock v. McGouirkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  2. Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  3. George v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  4. Jones v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Huntley Manufacturing Co. v. Nixon Grocery Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
  2. Oconee Oil Refining Co. v. Planters Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
  3. Wrigitt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  4. Johnson v. Douglas Grocery Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
  5. Wright v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909

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

Powered by the Exa API