Brannen v. Cubbedge

120 S.E.2d 58, 103 Ga. App. 552, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 997
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 5, 1961
Docket38766
StatusPublished

This text of 120 S.E.2d 58 (Brannen v. Cubbedge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brannen v. Cubbedge, 120 S.E.2d 58, 103 Ga. App. 552, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 997 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961).

Opinion

Nichols, Judge.

On October 11, 1960, the trial court overruled the defendant’s motion-for new trial and for a judgment non obstante veredicto. On November 8, I960, the -defendant tendered his bill of exceptions to the trial court for certification, counsel for the plaintiffs having waived notice of such presentation on the same date. On December 28, 1960, the [553]*553trial court certified the writ of error and on January 4, 1961, counsel for the plaintiffs acknowledged sendee of such writ of error. Held:

Decided April 5, 1961 Rehearing denied April 24, 1961. David H. Fritts, for plaintiff in error. Robert E. Falligant, contra.

1. Under the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Duke v. Kelly, 136 Ga. 832, 833 (72 S. E. 250); Clay v. Floyd, 208 Ga. 374 (66 S. E. 2d 916); Bostic v. Nesbitt, 209 Ga. 159 (71 S. E. 2d 213); Gilbert v. Moody, 209 Ga. 637 (74 S. E. 2d 879); Moore v. Moore, 215 Ga. 47 (2) (108 S. E. 2d 704); Walton v. Chatham, 215 Ga. 683 (113 S. E. 2d 125); Jarvis v. Risner, 215 Ga. 684 (113 S. E. 2d 126), and similar cases, the writ of error must be dismissed, for no reason appears in. the certificate, nor is any shown in the record, for the delay in certification, and counsel for the plaintiff in error have made no effort to obtain a mandamus from this court to compel the judge to certify the bill of exceptions.

2. The decision in the case of Buice v. Bryan, 212 Ga. 508 (1) (93 S. E. 2d 676), where the bill of exceptions was held by the trial judge for forty-five days, does not authorize a different judgment, for in that case the only party harmed by the delay was the plaintiff in error who was in jail, and the Supreme Court held that for such reason an exception to the general rule existed.

Writ of error dismissed.

Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Related

Gilbert v. Moody
74 S.E.2d 879 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1953)
Moore v. Moore
108 S.E.2d 704 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1959)
BOSTIC v. NESBITT
71 S.E.2d 213 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1952)
Clay v. Floyd
66 S.E.2d 916 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
Walton v. Chatham
113 S.E.2d 125 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1960)
Buice v. Bryan
93 S.E.2d 676 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)
Duke v. Kelly
72 S.E. 250 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1911)
Jarvis v. Risner
113 S.E.2d 126 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 S.E.2d 58, 103 Ga. App. 552, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brannen-v-cubbedge-gactapp-1961.