The motion to dissolve the receivership was based on allegations of fact. Neither the original motion to dissolve, nor the amendment, was verified by the petitioner. The motion to dissolve was not evidence of the facts alleged. The record clearly discloses that there was some hearing and consideration of the motion to dissolve the receivership. The bill of exceptions does not recite that the motion to dissolve was considered by the court on the pleadings alone. There is no evidence incorporated in the bill of exceptions on the hearing on the motion to dissolve, nor is any evidence specified as material to an understanding of the errors complained of. The application to appoint a receiver was duly verified, and set up a statement of facts which authorized, if indeed it did not demand, the appointment of a receiver. Since there is no evidence incorporated in the bill of exceptions and *768 none specified or otherwise brought to this court, no question dependent upon evidence could be decided. Kennedy v. Rogers, 145 Ga. 293 (3) (88 S. E. 974); McBurnette v. Huff, 154 Ga. 452, 453 (114 S. E. 578); Register v. Colter, 171 Ga. 439 (155 S. E. 767). The questions made by the motion to dissolve the receivership were entirely dependent upon evidence, and it follows that the judgment of the court below must be Affirmed.