Andrews v. Mayor of Savannah

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Andrews v. Mayor of Savannah

102 S.E. 875, 25 Ga. App. 182, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 676

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 13, 1920

Docket11232

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 102 S.E. 875 (Andrews v. Mayor of Savannah) 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

Andrews v. Mayor of Savannah, 102 S.E. 875, 25 Ga. App. 182, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 676 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The charter of the City of Savannah as amended by the act of the General Assembly of Georgia, approved August 16, 1915 (Ga. L. 1915, p. 825), provides, that “no action for damages to person ■or property . . . shall bo instituted against the City of Savannah [183]*183■ unless within six months from the'happening or inflicting of the injury complained of the complainant . . . shall give notice to the mayor and aldermen of said city of such injury in writing.” In the instant case the suit was against the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah for personal injuries, but the plaintiff’s petition showed that the required notice was not given until more than six months after the infliction of the injury sued for. The court therefore did not err in dismissing the petition, on the defendant’s motion.

Decided April 13, 1920.

Action for „ damages; from Chatham superior court — Judge Meldrim. November 12, 1919.

Oliver & Oliver, for plaintiff in error. Shelby Myrick, Edwin A. Cohen, contra.

2. A constitutional question can not be considered by the reviewing court unless it is made during the trial of the case in the lower court. It is too late to raise such a question for the first time in the higher court. Hendry v. State, 147 Ga. 260 (8) (93 S. E. 413) ; Bolton v. Newman, 147 Ga. 400 (94 S. E. 236; Scoggins v. State, 24 Ga: App. 677 (102 S. E. 39). Counsel for the plaintiff in error contend in their brief that the provision of the charter of the City of Savannah referred to is invalid and unconstitutional. It does not appear, however, from the record or the bill of exceptions that this question was made in-the lower court, and, accordingly, it can not be considered by this court, or by the Supreme Court, to which court this case would have to be transferred if a constitutional question had been raised in the lower court.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The charter of the City of Savannah as amended by the act of the General Assembly of Georgia, approved August 16, 1915 (Ga. L. 1915, p. 825), provides, that “no action for damages to person ■or property . . . shall bo instituted against the City of Savannah [183]*183■ unless within six months from the'happening or inflicting of the injury complained of the complainant . . . shall give notice to the mayor and aldermen of said city of such injury in writing.” In the instant case the suit was against the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah for personal injuries, but the plaintiff’s petition showed that the required notice was not given until more than six months after the infliction of the injury sued for. The court therefore did not err in dismissing the petition, on the defendant’s motion.

Decided April 13, 1920.

Action for „ damages; from Chatham superior court — Judge Meldrim. November 12, 1919.

Oliver & Oliver, for plaintiff in error. Shelby Myrick, Edwin A. Cohen, contra.

2. A constitutional question can not be considered by the reviewing court unless it is made during the trial of the case in the lower court. It is too late to raise such a question for the first time in the higher court. Hendry v. State, 147 Ga. 260 (8) (93 S. E. 413) ; Bolton v. Newman, 147 Ga. 400 (94 S. E. 236; Scoggins v. State, 24 Ga: App. 677 (102 S. E. 39). Counsel for the plaintiff in error contend in their brief that the provision of the charter of the City of Savannah referred to is invalid and unconstitutional. It does not appear, however, from the record or the bill of exceptions that this question was made in-the lower court, and, accordingly, it can not be considered by this court, or by the Supreme Court, to which court this case would have to be transferred if a constitutional question had been raised in the lower court.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E. 875, 25 Ga. App. 182, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-mayor-of-savannah-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack