Butters Manufacturing Co. v. Sims

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Butters Manufacturing Co. v. Sims

171 S.E. 162, 47 Ga. App. 648, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 589

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 12, 1933

Docket22651, 22652

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 S.E. 162 (Butters Manufacturing Co. v. Sims) 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

Butters Manufacturing Co. v. Sims, 171 S.E. 162, 47 Ga. App. 648, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 589 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. It is essential to the validity of a petition for certiorari, that, as provided in an act approved August 18, 1924 (Ga. L. 1924, p. 59), amending 'section 4365 of the Civil Code, “All certiorari proceedings shall be filed in the clerk's office within ten days from the date of their sanction.” Where a certiorari is dismissed because of want of compliance with the provisions of this act, the petition for certiorari and the writ of certiorari are invalid, and for this reason there has been no case pending which could be recommenced within six months, as provided in section 4381 of the Civil Code. See Barrett v. Devine, 60 Ga. 632; Shaw v. Griffin, 65 Ga. 304; Hilt v. Young, 116 Ga. 708 (43 S. E. 76).

2. As it would not have been error for the judge of the superior court to refuse to sanction the petition for certiorari which purported to be a renewal of former certiorari proceedings, if the court erred, because it had no authority to do so, in revoking the order of sanction upon the petition for certiorari, such error was harmless to the petitioner, and he can not complain. Brown v. Seals, 17 Ga. App. 4 (86 S. E. 277) ; Brackett v. Sebastian, 18 Ga. App. 525 (89 S. E. 1102).

Judgments affirmed.

Jenhims, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur. T. B. Higdon, for plaintiff in error. G. N. Davie, J. F. Kemp, contra.

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

Stephens, J.

1. It is essential to the validity of a petition for certiorari, that, as provided in an act approved August 18, 1924 (Ga. L. 1924, p. 59), amending 'section 4365 of the Civil Code, “All certiorari proceedings shall be filed in the clerk's office within ten days from the date of their sanction.” Where a certiorari is dismissed because of want of compliance with the provisions of this act, the petition for certiorari and the writ of certiorari are invalid, and for this reason there has been no case pending which could be recommenced within six months, as provided in section 4381 of the Civil Code. See Barrett v. Devine, 60 Ga. 632; Shaw v. Griffin, 65 Ga. 304; Hilt v. Young, 116 Ga. 708 (43 S. E. 76).

2. As it would not have been error for the judge of the superior court to refuse to sanction the petition for certiorari which purported to be a renewal of former certiorari proceedings, if the court erred, because it had no authority to do so, in revoking the order of sanction upon the petition for certiorari, such error was harmless to the petitioner, and he can not complain. Brown v. Seals, 17 Ga. App. 4 (86 S. E. 277) ; Brackett v. Sebastian, 18 Ga. App. 525 (89 S. E. 1102).

Judgments affirmed.

Jenhims, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur. T. B. Higdon, for plaintiff in error. G. N. Davie, J. F. Kemp, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 S.E. 162, 47 Ga. App. 648, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butters-manufacturing-co-v-sims-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack