Coley v. Smith
Summary of the case Coley v. Smith
The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the trial court's judgment because the appellant failed to comply with procedural rules requiring references to the record in their brief, leading to the abandonment of their enumeration of errors.
Key Issues of the case Coley v. Smith
- Non-compliance with procedural rules
- Abandonment of enumeration of errors
Key Facts of the case Coley v. Smith
- Appellant failed to comply with Rules 17 (a) (1) and 17 (c) (3) (A).
- The enumeration of errors was not supported by references to the record.
Decision of the case Coley v. Smith
Judgment affirmed.
Opinions
COLEY et al.
v.
SMITH et al.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
*823 C. C. Crockett, A. L. Hatcher, for appellants.
Milton Harrison, for appellees.
PANNELL, Judge.
The appellant, in his brief, has failed completely to comply with Rules 17 (a) (1) and 17 (c) (3) (A), which were effective August 1, 1965. 111 Ga. App. 883, 890. Accordingly the enumeration of errors not being supported by references to the record as therein provided will be considered as abandoned, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed. See Strickland v. English, 115 Ga. App. 384 (2) (154 SE2d 710).
Judgment affirmed. Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.