Lamar, Taylor & Riley Drug Co. v. S. Sch. Book Co., 90 S.E. 174 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916). · Go Syfert
Lamar, Taylor & Riley Drug Co. v. S. Sch. Book Co., 90 S.E. 174 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Cottonseed Oil Co. (gactapp, 1918-05-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Cottonseed Oil Co.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1918 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Lamar, Taylor & Riley Drug Co. v. Southern School Book Co., 18 Ga. App. 650 ( 90 S. E. 174 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lamar, Taylor & Riley Drug Company
v.
Southern School Book Company
7379.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Oct 4, 1916.
90 S.E. 174
L. M. Rambo, for plaintiff in error., (Ressner & Parle, contra.
Broyles.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Broyles, J.

This was a claim case, which was tried on the law and the facts by the presiding judge, sitting by consent without the intervention of a jury. Besides an agreed statement in writing as to certain facts on which counsel for the respective parties had agreed, testimony was elicited from two witnesses in behalf of the plaintiff as to facts in dispute. The judgment of the trial judge was that “under the evidence submitted and the law applicable thereto, the property levied on is subject, and the claimant has no title thereto. It is accordingly ordered and adjudged that the levy proceed for the benefit of the plaintiff, the Southern School Book Company, as transferee and holder of the fi. fa., and that said plaintiff recover of the claimant, the Lamar, Taylor & Riley Drug Company, for the use and benefit of the officers of this court, - dollars, costs of this proceeding.” The only exception to this judgment is a mere general assignment of error, which in substance amounts to no more than a statement that the trial judge,erred in finding for the plaintiff fi. fa., and that he should have found for the claimant. Issues of fact and law are both involved in this case, and there being no sufficiently specific assignment of error[*651] upon either, the writ of error must be dismissed. Patterson, v. Beck, 133 Ga. 701, 706 (66 S. E. 911); and cases there cited; Wheeler v. Worley, 110 Ga. 513 (35 S. E. 639); Kimball V. Williams, 108 Ga. 812 (33 S. E. 994). Writ of error dismissed.

Decided October 4, 1916. Levy and claim; from city court of Blakely — Judge Sheffield. March 20, 1916. L. M. Rambo, for plaintiff in error. (Ressner & Parle, contra.