Atlanta & West Point Railroad v. Golightly

97 S.E. 516, 148 Ga. 582, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 450
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 16, 1918
DocketNo. 1030
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 516 (Atlanta & West Point Railroad v. Golightly) 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
Atlanta & West Point Railroad v. Golightly, 97 S.E. 516, 148 Ga. 582, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 450 (Ga. 1918).

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Golightly brought an equitable action against the railroad company. To the overruling of its general demurrer the defendant excepted. After the bill of exceptions had been signed and certified by the presiding judge, and after this court had acquired jurisdiction of the case, the plaintiff dismissed his case in the trial court, without the knowledge or consent of the defendant. Thereupon the defendant (plaintiff in error) filed a petition in this court, reciting the facts just stated, attaching satisfactory documentary proof, and representing that the- questions were moot because of said, dismissal, and prayed for a judgment against the defendant in error for the amount of costs in this court advanced by plaintiff in error and for the costs accruing in the trial court on account of the transcribing of the record and the transmission of the same to the Supreme Court,' and all other costs growing out of the bill of exceptions filed. Held:

1. The issues involved are moot, because the case is no longer pending in the superior court. Mott v. Hill, 7 Ga. 79.

2. The petition to this court, properly construed, is a motion by the plaintiff in error to dismiss its bill' of exceptions; and this court will not tax against the defendant in error the costs advanced in this court. Compare Christopher v. Crovalt, 147 Ga. 632 (95 S. E. 233).

3. The matter of taxing costs accruing in the superior court is within the jurisdiction of that court, and will not be decided by this court except upon review. Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Richardson v. State
74 S.E.2d 15 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Walden v. Whitney Company
36 S.E.2d 157 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Griffin v. Securities Investment Co.
192 S.E. 909 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
City of Jackson v. Hardy
180 S.E. 610 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Richardson v. State
157 S.E. 625 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Wilkes v. Proctor
114 S.E. 913 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Marshall v. Johnson
101 S.E. 577 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)
Deaton v. Day
98 S.E. 267 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 S.E. 516, 148 Ga. 582, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlanta-west-point-railroad-v-golightly-ga-1918.