Byers v. City of Atlanta

42 S.E.2d 140, 74 Ga. App. 871, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 720
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 11, 1947
Docket31502, 31503.
StatusPublished

This text of 42 S.E.2d 140 (Byers v. City of Atlanta) 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
Byers v. City of Atlanta, 42 S.E.2d 140, 74 Ga. App. 871, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 720 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947).

Opinion

Bkoyles, C. J.

1. Assignments of error, whether contained in a bill of exceptions or in a petition for certiorari, must be specific; and, when based upon a judgment of the trial court, must specifically point out the reason why the judgment is error; and, where the only assignment of error in a bill of exceptions to a judgment is that the plaintiff in error excepted to the judgment and assigns the same as “error,” the assignment of error does not point out the reason why the judgment is erroneous and presents no question for the consideration of this court. Kimball v. Williams, 108 Ga. 812 (33 S. E. 994); Collins v. Carr, 111 Ga. 867 (36 S. E. 959); Wheeler v. Worley, 110 Ga. 513 (35 S. E. 639); Wall v. Hawker Co., 27 Ga. App. 255 (2) (108 S. E. 134); Burkes v. State, 71 Ga. App. 808 (32 S. E. 2d, 420).

2. In each of the instant cases, the judgment complained of was the overruling of a certiorari, and the assignment of error was as follows: “To ■ which order this plaintiff [in error] then and there excepted and now excepts and assigns error thereon, and says that the court erred in denying said certiorari.” In view of the ruling in the preceding head *872 note, the assignment of error in each of these cases was not “specific” within the meaning of the statute (Code, § 6-901), and the writ of error in each of these cases must he and is

Decided March 11, 1947. M. F. Stinchcomb, for plaintiff in error. E. E. Andrews, Solicitor-General, J. G. Savage, J. C. Murphy, J. M. B. Bloodworth, John E. Feagin, contra.

Dismissed.

MacIntyre and Gta/rdner, JJ., concur. .

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

Related

Burkes v. State
32 S.E.2d 420 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Kimball v. Williams & McCurdy
33 S.E. 994 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)
Wheeler v. Worley
35 S.E. 639 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Collins v. Carr
36 S.E. 959 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Wall v. Hawker Pottery Co.
108 S.E. 134 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 S.E.2d 140, 74 Ga. App. 871, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byers-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1947.