Barbaree v. Coffin

Supreme Court of Georgia

Barbaree v. Coffin

92 S.E.2d 860, 212 Ga. 370, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 374

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1956

Docket19296

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 92 S.E.2d 860 (Barbaree v. Coffin) 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

Barbaree v. Coffin, 92 S.E.2d 860, 212 Ga. 370, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 374 (Ga. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Mobley, Justice.

The onR acknowledgment of service of the bill of exceptions made in this case was as follows: “The undersigned, the attorney at law of E. C. Coffin, defendant in error in the above-stated case, acknowledges that I have been served with a copy of the foregoing bill of exceptions. I hereby waive the privilege and opportunity to be heard on the question of whether or not the bill of exceptions is correct and complete and I hereby approve the foregoing bill of exceptions as correct and complete as to the facts therein stated. This the__________________ day [no date] of February, 1956.” A waiver of the notice provided for by Code (Ann. Supp.) § 6-908.1 as to the correctness and completeness of the bill of exceptions prior to certification by the trial judge does not dispense with service of a copy of the bill after approval by the trial judge, as provided by Code (Ann Supp.) § 6-911. Statham v. Saxon, 210 Ga. 369 (80 S. E. 2d 182). Compliance with the latter Code section is essential to give this court jurisdiction. (Mauldin v. Mauldin, 203 Ga. 123, 45 S. E. 2d 818; Harper v. A. & W. P. R., 204 Ga. 311, 49 S. E. 2d 513; Parker v. Parker, 208 Ga. 190, 65 S. E. 2d 794); and where this section is not complied with, the writ of error must be

Dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Mobley, Justice.

The onR acknowledgment of service of the bill of exceptions made in this case was as follows: “The undersigned, the attorney at law of E. C. Coffin, defendant in error in the above-stated case, acknowledges that I have been served with a copy of the foregoing bill of exceptions. I hereby waive the privilege and opportunity to be heard on the question of whether or not the bill of exceptions is correct and complete and I hereby approve the foregoing bill of exceptions as correct and complete as to the facts therein stated. This the__________________ day [no date] of February, 1956.” A waiver of the notice provided for by Code (Ann. Supp.) § 6-908.1 as to the correctness and completeness of the bill of exceptions prior to certification by the trial judge does not dispense with service of a copy of the bill after approval by the trial judge, as provided by Code (Ann Supp.) § 6-911. Statham v. Saxon, 210 Ga. 369 (80 S. E. 2d 182). Compliance with the latter Code section is essential to give this court jurisdiction. (Mauldin v. Mauldin, 203 Ga. 123, 45 S. E. 2d 818; Harper v. A. & W. P. R., 204 Ga. 311, 49 S. E. 2d 513; Parker v. Parker, 208 Ga. 190, 65 S. E. 2d 794); and where this section is not complied with, the writ of error must be

Dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E.2d 860, 212 Ga. 370, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbaree-v-coffin-ga-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack