Bennett v. Bainbridge Farm Co.

162 S.E. 134, 173 Ga. 856, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 426
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 16, 1931·No. Nos. 8615, 8652·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Hines, J.

A paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions, properly certified by the trial judge, but not signed by the plaintiff in error or his counsel, is not a legal bill of exceptions, confers no jurisdiction of the case upon this court, is not amendable to correct the defect, and will be dismissed with or without motion for that purpose. Speer v. Merryman, 56 Ga. 529; Brand v. Garrett, 62 Ga. 165; Wellborn v. Atlanta &c. R. Co., 92 Ga. 577 (17 S. E. 672); Sumner v. Sumner, 116 Ga. 798 (43 S. E. 57); O’Connell v. Friedman, 117 Ga. 949 (43 S. E. 100); Mitchell v. Tow, 147 Ga. 560 (94 S. E. 1012) ; Lott v. Waycross, 152 Ga. 237 (110 S. E. 217); Smith v. Jones, 155 Ga. 439 (117 S. E. 246).

Writs of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Bennett v. Bainbridge Farm Co., 162 S.E. 134, 173 Ga. 856, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 426 (Ga. 1931).

162 S.E. 134 (Bennett v. Bainbridge Farm Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Highway Department v. Hester
143 S.E.2d 658 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Strange v. Sloman
96 S.E.2d 610 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1957)
Henderson v. State
24 S.E.2d 72 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Kyle v. Huiet
17 S.E.2d 745 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Studstill v. State
170 S.E. 91 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)