Bailey v. Ware

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bailey v. Ware

91 S.E. 275, 19 Ga. App. 255, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 85

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 1, 1917

Docket7566

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 275 (Bailey v. Ware) 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

Bailey v. Ware, 91 S.E. 275, 19 Ga. App. 255, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

When this case was here before (17 Ga. App. 492, 87 S. E. 712), the court decided that the judge “erred in allowing exceptions to the answer to be filed after the hearing was begun, and in sustaining them; ” and also erred in allowing “ an additional answer of the trial judge to become a part of the record in the case.” For these special reasons the judgment of the court below was reversed, without considering the other assignments of error in the petition for certiorari, except to decide that the trial court properly overruled the demurrer to the original petition. Held: (1) The effect of the said decision was to send the case back to the superior court to be heard on the original petition and the answer, except that the said court would not consider assignments of error as to the overruling of the demurrer. (2) The certiorari was properly overruled, thus precluding the possibility of another trial under this proceeding. The plaintiff in error had given a certiorari bond .upon which judgment was to be entered as in cases of appeal, and the judge did not err in making a final disposition of the case. Civil Code, §§ 5205, 5937.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Jenkins, J., eoneur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

When this case was here before (17 Ga. App. 492, 87 S. E. 712), the court decided that the judge “erred in allowing exceptions to the answer to be filed after the hearing was begun, and in sustaining them; ” and also erred in allowing “ an additional answer of the trial judge to become a part of the record in the case.” For these special reasons the judgment of the court below was reversed, without considering the other assignments of error in the petition for certiorari, except to decide that the trial court properly overruled the demurrer to the original petition. Held: (1) The effect of the said decision was to send the case back to the superior court to be heard on the original petition and the answer, except that the said court would not consider assignments of error as to the overruling of the demurrer. (2) The certiorari was properly overruled, thus precluding the possibility of another trial under this proceeding. The plaintiff in error had given a certiorari bond .upon which judgment was to be entered as in cases of appeal, and the judge did not err in making a final disposition of the case. Civil Code, §§ 5205, 5937.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Jenkins, J., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 275, 19 Ga. App. 255, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-ware-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack