Napier v. Burkett

• Decision Date: 24 May 1901
• Citation: 38 S.E. 941,113 Ga. 607
• Parties: NAPIER et al. v. BURKETT.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

38 S.E. 941

113 Ga. 607

NAPIER et al. v. BURKETT.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 24, 1901

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Points made in a bill of exceptions, which are not argued here, will be treated as abandoned. (a) After a case has been argued in this court, supplemental briefs, deposited in the clerk's office without special leave to do so, will not be considered.

2. A ground of a motion for a new trial, complaining in general terms that the verdict is contrary to law, does not present for decision any legal question.

3. The evidence offered by the defendant amply sustained the answer as amended, and warranted the verdict in her favor.

Error from superior court, Twiggs county; C. C. Smith, Judge.

Action between Napier Bros. & Co. and L. M. Burkett. From a judgment, Napier Bros. & Co. bring error. Affirmed.

Hardeman Davis & Turner and Geo. S. Jones, for plaintiffs in error.

Minter Wimberly, for defendant in error.

LEWIS J.

1. The bill of exceptions alleged error in the allowance by the court of the amendment to the answer of the defendant. The case was argued here for the plaintiffs in error exclusively by brief, and in the brief no reference whatever is made to this point. In accordance with the repeated decisions of this court, it will therefore be treated as having been abandoned. See Parker v. Lanier, 82 Ga. 219, 8 S.E. 57; Brown v. State, 82 Ga. 224, 7 S.E. 915; Davis v Jackson, 86 Ga. 138, 12 S.E. 299; Railway Co. v Wideman, 99 Ga. 245, 25 S.E. 400; Moss v. Lovett, 99 Ga. 321, 25 S.E. 649; Thompson v. Waterman, 100 Ga. 586, 28 S.E. 286; Laffitte v. State, 105 Ga. 595, 31 S.E. 540; Sanders Mfg. Co. v. Dollar Sav. Bank, 110 Ga. 559, 35 S.E. 777; Cooper v. Stonecypher, 111 Ga. 818, 35 S.E. 675; Moss v. Bohanon, 111 Ga. 871, 36 S.E. 954. After the case was heard, and the written synopsis of the points decided had been prepared, counsel for the plaintiffs in error filed in the clerk's office a supplemental brief, discussing, among other things, the alleged error in allowing the amendment to the answer. No permission was asked to file this supplemental brief, and none was granted. Coming to us in such a manner, it must be disregarded.

2. No question of the sufficiency of the defendant's answer is made in the motion for a new trial. Complaint is merely made in general terms that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, etc. Such an assignment of error presents nothing for the decision of this court, and therefore cannot be considered. See Roberts v. Keeler, 111 Ga. 181, 36 S.E. 617; Wight v....