Britt v. Howard

101 S.E. 768, 24 Ga. App. 657, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 440
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 6, 1920·No. 11200·Published

Opinion

Bboyles, C. J.

A bill of exceptions was tendered to the judge, and he refused to sign it, and returned it, within ten days, to the movant’s counsel, with his written objections, pointing out therein, among other things, that the bill of exceptions contained material statements of fact which were not true. It not appearing that the objections specified by the judge were met and removed, this court will not require him to sign the bill of exceptions. Civil Code (1910), § 6158; Campbell v. Foute, 6 Ga. App. 113 (64 S. E. 292); Covin v. Willie, 19 Ga. App. 259 (91 S. E. 278), and citations.

Mandamus nisi denied.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ,, concur.

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

Britt v. Howard, 101 S.E. 768, 24 Ga. App. 657, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 440 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

101 S.E. 768 (Britt v. Howard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Campbell v. Foute
64 S.E. 292 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)
Covin v. Willie
91 S.E. 278 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)