TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Peavy v. Atkinson Bros.

PEAVY v. ATKINSON BROTHERS

Peavy v. Atkinson Bros., 33 S.E. 956 (Ga. 1899)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 21, 1899
Judges
Fish
Citations
33 S.E. 956108 Ga. 1671899 Ga. LEXIS 207
Headnotes
Where questions both of law and of fact, raised by the interposition of an affidavit of illegality to the levy of an execution, are by consent of the parties submitted to the judge of a superior court, without the intervention of a jury, and he renders a judgment wherein he overrules the illegality and orders the execution to proceed, to which judgment exception is taken, and the only assignment of error in the bill of exceptions is as follows : “To which order the defendant excepted and now assigns the same as error,” such assignment of error is too general to be considered by this court, and the writ of error will be .dismissed.
Summary
Practice in the Supreme Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Fish

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Fish, J.

The above headnote needs no elaboration. Under repeated rulings of this court, the assignment of error in the bill of exceptions in this case is too general to be considered by the court. It does not specify how or wherein the trial judge, to whom the case was submitted without the intervention of a jurj»-, erred in the judgment rendered. It is incumbent on a plaintiff in error to specify plainly and distinctly the decision complained of, and the error alleged to exist therein ; and unless this is done the case can not be considered by this court. Mayor of Brunswick v. Moore, 74 Ga. 409 ; Hall v. Huff, Ibid.; Mutual Building and Loan Asso. v. Glessner, 99 Ga. 747 ; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 102 Ga. 551 .

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1900: 11901: 11907: 21916: 11918: 11926: 11931: 119002026peak 1907 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Horkan v. City of Moultrie89 S.E. 681 (Ga. 1916)
  2. Eubanks v. Griffin Investment Co.134 S.E. 760 (Ga. 1926)
  3. Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Cottonseed Oil Co.96 S.E. 586 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918)
  4. Johnson v. Lowry160 S.E. 875 (Ga. 1931)
  5. Eastmore v. Bunkley39 S.E. 105 (Ga. 1901)
  6. Marshall v. English-American Loan & Trust Co.56 S.E. 449 (Ga. 1907)

Most recent

  1. Johnson v. Lowry160 S.E. 875 (Ga. 1931)
  2. Eubanks v. Griffin Investment Co.134 S.E. 760 (Ga. 1926)
  3. Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Cottonseed Oil Co.96 S.E. 586 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918)
  4. Horkan v. City of Moultrie89 S.E. 681 (Ga. 1916)
  5. Smith v. Marshall56 S.E. 416 (Ga. 1907)
  6. Marshall v. English-American Loan & Trust Co.56 S.E. 449 (Ga. 1907)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Fid. & Deposit Co. v. Anderson, 28 S.E. 382 (Ga. 1897) 17
Mut. Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Glessner, 27 S.E. 187 (Ga. 1896) 14
Mayor of Brunswick v. Moore, 74 Ga. 409 (1885) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list