Andeppa v. Kidwell
This text of 175 S.E. 555 (Andeppa v. Kidwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Where one is tried in a recorder’s court for violation of a municipal ordinance, and sues out a writ of certiorari to the superior court, attacking the validity of the ordinance, and where the judge of the superior court refuses to sanction the writ of certiorari, such judgment is the equivalent of an affirmance of the judgment rendered in the recorder’s court, and adjudicates the question of the validity of the ordinance as against the attack, and is conclusive until reversed or set aside. In the present cases the judgments of dismissal were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Andeppa v. Savannah, 48 Ga. App. 160 (172 S. E. 90). In these circumstances the writ of habeas corpus is not available to attack [234]*234tlie validity of the same ordinance on the same grounds. Forbes v. Savannah, 160 Ga. 701 (128 S. E. 806).
Judgments affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
175 S.E. 555, 179 Ga. 233, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andeppa-v-kidwell-ga-1934.