
    PEAVY v. ATKINSON BROTHERS.
    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.
    Submitted June 15,
    Decided July 21, 1899.
    Practice in the Supreme Court.
    
      George L. Peavy, for plaintiff in error.
    
      N. F. Culpepper, contra.
   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.  