Britt v. Howard

101 S.E. 768, 24 Ga. App. 657, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 440
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 6, 1920
Docket11200
StatusPublished

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 S.E. 768, 24 Ga. App. 657, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britt-v-howard-gactapp-1920.