Atlanta Woodenware Co. v. Franklin & Ridley

75 S.E. 9, 11 Ga. App. 245, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 351
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 5, 1912
Docket4081
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 75 S.E. 9 (Atlanta Woodenware Co. v. Franklin & Ridley) 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
Atlanta Woodenware Co. v. Franklin & Ridley, 75 S.E. 9, 11 Ga. App. 245, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 351 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

While the statute requires in express terms that the plaintiff in certiorari shall cause written notice to be given to the opposite party, his agent or attorney, of the sanction of the writ of certiorari, and also of the time and place of hearing', at least ten days before the sitting of the court to which the same is returnable, and that in default of such notice, unless prevented by unavoidable cause, the certiorari shall be dismissed (Civil Code (1910), § 5190), and while it has been repeatedly ruled by the Supreme Court and this court that this mandatory requirement as to notice must be obeyed, or there must appear in the record a written waiver of this notice, or the certiorari will be dismissed (McConnell v. Folsom, 4 Ga. App. 535, and citations (61 S. E. 1051)), yet where it appears from the record that the defendant in certiorari filed exceptions to the answer of the magistrate, and that these exceptions were heard and overruled by the judge of the superior court, it is too late to raise the question of want of the statutory notice. The defendant in certiorari having actually appeared in the case in the superior court, and filed exceptions to the answer of the magistrate, [246]*246and having invoked a hearing on these exceptions, it would be trifling with the court for him subsequently to be allowed, when his exceptions had been overruled, to complain that he had not received the notice required by the statute. Judgment reversed.

Decided June 5, 1912. Certiorari; from Pulaski superior court — Judge Martin. February 15, 1912. Marion Turner, for plaintiff. Herbert L. Grice, W. L. & Warren Grice, for defendant.

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

Related

Glover v. Berry Schools
83 S.E.2d 22 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Goldberg v. City of Atlanta
30 S.E.2d 661 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Mathis v. Timmons, McWhite & Co.
89 S.E. 1097 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Peoples Bank of Oliver v. Ash
89 S.E. 441 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 S.E. 9, 11 Ga. App. 245, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlanta-woodenware-co-v-franklin-ridley-gactapp-1912.