Adams v. Drinkard

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Adams v. Drinkard

140 S.E. 424, 37 Ga. App. 395, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 716

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 17, 1927

Docket18401

StatusPublished

This text of 140 S.E. 424 (Adams v. Drinkard) 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. Drinkard, 140 S.E. 424, 37 Ga. App. 395, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 716 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. An affidavit made upon the bill of exceptions by counsel for • the plaintiff in error that “Due and legal service was agreed upon by counsel in the within bill of exceptions, then after same was mailed with copy to LaGrange, Ga., attorney for defendant in error returned papers on July 12, 1927,” is, where the bill of exceptions was certified to on June 28, 1927, insufficient to show that service of the bill of exceptions was perfected by delivery of a copy of the bill of exceptions to opposing counsel within ten days from the date of its certification, or that service was acknowledged within that period, as required under-section 6160 of the Civil Code (1910).

2. Where such affidavit constitutes the only evidence of service, or of acknowledgment of service, of the bill of exceptions, and where counsel for the defendant in error does not waive service of the bill of exceptions, or does not consent for the case to be heard in this court, the motion of counsel for the defendant in error to dismiss the bill of exceptions for want of service must be sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. An affidavit made upon the bill of exceptions by counsel for • the plaintiff in error that “Due and legal service was agreed upon by counsel in the within bill of exceptions, then after same was mailed with copy to LaGrange, Ga., attorney for defendant in error returned papers on July 12, 1927,” is, where the bill of exceptions was certified to on June 28, 1927, insufficient to show that service of the bill of exceptions was perfected by delivery of a copy of the bill of exceptions to opposing counsel within ten days from the date of its certification, or that service was acknowledged within that period, as required under-section 6160 of the Civil Code (1910).

2. Where such affidavit constitutes the only evidence of service, or of acknowledgment of service, of the bill of exceptions, and where counsel for the defendant in error does not waive service of the bill of exceptions, or does not consent for the case to be heard in this court, the motion of counsel for the defendant in error to dismiss the bill of exceptions for want of service must be sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 424, 37 Ga. App. 395, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-drinkard-gactapp-1927.