Anderson v. Humphries

Supreme Court of Georgia

Anderson v. Humphries

78 S.E. 1079, 140 Ga. 368, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 135

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 19, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 78 S.E. 1079 (Anderson v. Humphries) 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.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Humphries, 78 S.E. 1079, 140 Ga. 368, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 135 (Ga. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. Under the rulings in Westfield v. Mayor etc. of Toccoa City, 80 Ga. 735 (6 S. E. 471), and Advance Lumber Co. v. Moreland, 132 Ga. 852 (65 S. E. 86), a mere statement entered on a bill of exceptions, and signed by counsel for plaintiff in error, to the effect that he has served a copy of the bill of exceptions by delivering it to counsel ■ for defendant in error, with no official entry of service or affidavit thereof as provided by the statute, is not sufficient; and a case brought up by such bill of exceptions will be dismissed on motion.

2. The appearance in this court of counsel who represented the party in whose favor the judgment was rendered in the court below, and the making by him of a motion to dismiss the writ of error for want of service, among other grounds, does not operate as a waiver of service or an agreement for the case to proceed, under the Civil Code, § 6160, par. 3.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Lumpkin, J.

1. Under the rulings in Westfield v. Mayor etc. of Toccoa City, 80 Ga. 735 (6 S. E. 471), and Advance Lumber Co. v. Moreland, 132 Ga. 852 (65 S. E. 86), a mere statement entered on a bill of exceptions, and signed by counsel for plaintiff in error, to the effect that he has served a copy of the bill of exceptions by delivering it to counsel ■ for defendant in error, with no official entry of service or affidavit thereof as provided by the statute, is not sufficient; and a case brought up by such bill of exceptions will be dismissed on motion.

2. The appearance in this court of counsel who represented the party in whose favor the judgment was rendered in the court below, and the making by him of a motion to dismiss the writ of error for want of service, among other grounds, does not operate as a waiver of service or an agreement for the case to proceed, under the Civil Code, § 6160, par. 3.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 1079, 140 Ga. 368, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-humphries-ga-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack