Blount v. Wells

55 Ga. 282
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 15, 1875·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Bleckley, Judge.

This execution was from the county court provided for by the act of 1866. Section seventli of that act creates the office of clerk, and' lays no restriction upon his practicing law. Neither thejudiciafy act of 1799, Cobb’s Digest, 574, nor the Code, section 256, applies to him. The county court act was complete in itself as to the clerk. Other legislation need not be referred to, to find out what he can or cannot do, further than the act makes the reference by its own terms. Besides, as the clerk was an officer defacto, a ministerial act performed by him as such is valid : See 20 Georgia Reports, 746. In the case cited, a judicial act by a justice of the peace, performed after his removal from the district, was upheld.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Blount v. Wells, 55 Ga. 282 (Ga. 1875).

55 Ga. 282 (Blount v. Wells) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Strickland v. Strickland
100 S.E. 230 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Thornton v. Ferguson
67 S.E. 97 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
Beall v. Sinquefield & Co.
73 Ga. 48 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1884)
Twiggs v. Hardwick
61 Ga. 272 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1878)
Walden v. County of Lee
60 Ga. 296 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1878)