Adams v. Bishop

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Adams v. Bishop

166 S.E. 460, 46 Ga. App. 32, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 16

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1932

Docket22227

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 S.E. 460 (Adams v. Bishop) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Bishop, 166 S.E. 460, 46 Ga. App. 32, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 16 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Hoopee, J.

1. “In a certiorari case the answer of the trial judge is the only source from which knowledge of the facts of the case and the rulings can be derived by the reviewing court.” Kilpatrick v. Smith, 32 Ga. App. 44 (123 S. E. 35).

2. While the petition for certiorari in this ease referred to certain documents as having been admitted in evidence before the trial magistrate (including two deeds upon which plaintiff relied), neither in the petition nor in the answer of the trial magistrate do such documents or the substantial contents thereof anywhere appear. No exceptions were taken to the answer of the magistrate to the writ. The record before the judge of the superior court, therefore, not disclosing that there was sufficient evidence before the trial magistrate to authorize a judgment in favor of the petitioner, and no error of law appearing, the order overruling the certiorari was proper. See Pitts v. Simpson Grocery Co., 15 Ga. App. 617 (83 S. E. 1102).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., not presiding.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hoopee, J.

1. “In a certiorari case the answer of the trial judge is the only source from which knowledge of the facts of the case and the rulings can be derived by the reviewing court.” Kilpatrick v. Smith, 32 Ga. App. 44 (123 S. E. 35).

2. While the petition for certiorari in this ease referred to certain documents as having been admitted in evidence before the trial magistrate (including two deeds upon which plaintiff relied), neither in the petition nor in the answer of the trial magistrate do such documents or the substantial contents thereof anywhere appear. No exceptions were taken to the answer of the magistrate to the writ. The record before the judge of the superior court, therefore, not disclosing that there was sufficient evidence before the trial magistrate to authorize a judgment in favor of the petitioner, and no error of law appearing, the order overruling the certiorari was proper. See Pitts v. Simpson Grocery Co., 15 Ga. App. 617 (83 S. E. 1102).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 460, 46 Ga. App. 32, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-bishop-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack