Burnett v. McDaniel & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Burnett v. McDaniel & Co.

133 S.E. 268, 35 Ga. App. 367, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 357

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 12, 1926

Docket17182

StatusPublished

This text of 133 S.E. 268 (Burnett v. McDaniel & Co.) 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

Burnett v. McDaniel & Co., 133 S.E. 268, 35 Ga. App. 367, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 357 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Duke, J.

1. It appearing that the bill of exceptions was not presented to the trial judge for approval within the time allowed by law, the motion to dismiss the writ of error must prevail.

2. Section 4864 of the Civil Code (1910), as to the duty of the trial judge to notify counsel of the overruling of a motion for a new trial, is directory only, “and will not suffice, when considered in connection with Civil Code § 6152, to extend the time prescribed therein for presenting bills of exception for approval.” Columbia Fire Ins. Co. v. Sams, 141 Ga. 641 (81 S. E. 856); Wright v. Moon, 30 Ga. App. 87 (116 S. E. 545).

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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