Burruss-Manley Co. v. Lewis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Burruss-Manley Co. v. Lewis

70 S.E. 27, 8 Ga. App. 552, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 39

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 24, 1911

Docket2572

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 S.E. 27 (Burruss-Manley Co. v. Lewis) 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

Burruss-Manley Co. v. Lewis, 70 S.E. 27, 8 Ga. App. 552, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 39 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. It is not valid ground for the dismissal of a petition for certiorari that one of the attorneys in the case wrote the answer of the magistrate, though this would he ground for exception to the answer. See Kelly v. Young, ante, 551.

2. The judge had the discretion to sustain the certiorari and grant a new trial (irrespective of whether the reason assigned be meritorious or not), as the evidence was conflicting. Judgment affirmed.

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

Powell, J.

1. It is not valid ground for the dismissal of a petition for certiorari that one of the attorneys in the case wrote the answer of the magistrate, though this would he ground for exception to the answer. See Kelly v. Young, ante, 551.

2. The judge had the discretion to sustain the certiorari and grant a new trial (irrespective of whether the reason assigned be meritorious or not), as the evidence was conflicting. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E. 27, 8 Ga. App. 552, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burruss-manley-co-v-lewis-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack