Bishop v. Lamkin

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bishop v. Lamkin

146 S.E.2d 769, 221 Ga. 691, 1966 Ga. LEXIS 670

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 6, 1966

Docket23241

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 S.E.2d 769 (Bishop v. Lamkin) 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

Bishop v. Lamkin, 146 S.E.2d 769, 221 Ga. 691, 1966 Ga. LEXIS 670 (Ga. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

Since bills of exceptions have been abolished under the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Code Ann. § 6-801; Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 20), and this case clearly was appealed after the effective date of that Act as set forth in Section 24 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 40) thereof, the writ of error here is dismissed. Code Ann. § 6-904 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 32). However, no examination was made of the record to determine whether such case may have met all requirements of the new procedure Act, supra, because the companion case Bishop v. Lamkin, 221 Ga. 687, ante, was [692]*692by appeal and seemingly raised all grounds of error raised in this bill of exceptions.

Argued December 13, 1965 Decided January 6, 1966. Thurmond, Hester, Jolles & McElmurray, Cornelius B. Thurmond, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Randall Evans; Jr., contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

Since bills of exceptions have been abolished under the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Code Ann. § 6-801; Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 20), and this case clearly was appealed after the effective date of that Act as set forth in Section 24 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 40) thereof, the writ of error here is dismissed. Code Ann. § 6-904 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 32). However, no examination was made of the record to determine whether such case may have met all requirements of the new procedure Act, supra, because the companion case Bishop v. Lamkin, 221 Ga. 687, ante, was [692]*692by appeal and seemingly raised all grounds of error raised in this bill of exceptions.

Argued December 13, 1965 Decided January 6, 1966. Thurmond, Hester, Jolles & McElmurray, Cornelius B. Thurmond, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Randall Evans; Jr., contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.E.2d 769, 221 Ga. 691, 1966 Ga. LEXIS 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-lamkin-ga-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack