Case Name: TAYLOR et al. v. WRIGHT
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1909-05-13
Citations: 132 Ga. 586
Docket Number: 
Parties: TAYLOR et al. v. WRIGHT.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
TAYLOR et al. v. WRIGHT.
1. By agreement of counsel for both parties this ease was submitted to the trial judge “to decide on the law and the facts without intervention of a jury.” After the conclusion of the evidence the judge rendered' a .decision in favor of the defendant, disposing of the same upon the law and the facts; the only exception to which, is in the following words: “To which finding and judgment of his honor, the judge, the plaintiff in error excepted and now excepts, and assigns the same as error.” Eeld, that such assignment of error is too general to raise any question for determination by this court; and there being no other assignment of error which can, under the judge’s certificate to the bill of exceptions, be considered, the writ of error is, upon motion, dismissed. Lyndon v. Georgia. By. & Elec. Co., 129 Ga. 353 (58 S. E. 1058).
2. Assignments of error which aro too vague and general to be considered can not be made specific by amending the bill of exceptions after it reaches this court. Stewart v. Marietta Trust Go., 129 Ga. 418 (59 S. E. 231).
Argued January 5,
Decided May 13, 1909.
Eviction; from Newton. Motion to dismiss writ of error.
F. O. Foster, for plaintiffs.
MiddlehrooJc, Rogers & Knox, for defendant.

Opinion:
Beck, J.
In addition to the general exception stated in the headnote there were specific exceptions to the rulings of the court upon the question of the admissibility of certain oral testimony; but the judge in his certificate to the bill of exceptions states that this evidence was rejected by him and was not considered in reaching his finding and judgment as rendered; leaving as the only question to be considered the judgment which disposed of the ease upon the law and the facts. And, as we have ruled in the headnote, that assignment was too general to raise any question for consideration or determination here. Smith v. Marshall, 127 Ga. 374 (56 S. E. 416).
'Writ of error dismissed.
All the Justices concur.