Bibb Brick Co. v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
This text of 105 S.E. 833 (Bibb Brick Co. v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.) 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.
Opinion
The case is in this court by certiorari to the Court of Appeals. That court made the following rulings :
“ Smith, J. 1. A party who is dissatisfied with the award in condemnation proceedings which have been instituted to assess the damages to private property taken for public use, and who desires to appeal from the decision of the assessors to the superior court, is not required to give bond for the eventual condemnation-money as in case of other appeals. Alderman v. Valdosta &c. R. Co., 9 Ga. App. 526 (71 S. E. 931).
“ 2. Where, in condemnation proceedings instituted to assess the damage to private property taken for public use, the condemnor desires to appeal from the decision of the assessors to the superior [84]*84court, an appeal entered by the attorneys at law for the condemnor is good in law. Civil Code, § 4955.
“ 3. Under the above rulings the court erred in dismissing the appeal.”
In Potts v. City of Atlanta, 140 Ga. 431 (79 S. E. 110), the municipality appealed in a condemnation proceeding from the award of assessors. “ A motion was made to dismiss the appeal, on the grounds, that no exceptions to the award were filed by the city and no demand for an appeal; that the bond was signed by the assistant city attorney, who was without authority to sign it; and that no appeal could be taken by the city without corporate action.” The question whether an appeal bond was necessary in the case was not made, nor was it decided, although it was ruled that the appeal was “duly entered upon the city’s filing with the clerk of the sú[85]*85perior court, within the statutory time, a bond, for the eventual condemnation-money, containing a recital of tbe proceedings and the result thereof, and of a desire to appeal from the award to the superior court,” and that such bond might be executed and the appeal entered by the attorney at law of the city, and that no municipal action was necessary to authorize the appeal.
3. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
105 S.E. 833, 151 Ga. 83, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bibb-brick-co-v-central-of-georgia-railway-co-ga-1921.