Charles v. Bishop

117 S.E. 275, 30 Ga. App. 242, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 369
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 18, 1923
Docket14089
StatusPublished

This text of 117 S.E. 275 (Charles v. Bishop) 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
Charles v. Bishop, 117 S.E. 275, 30 Ga. App. 242, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 369 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

“The fact that a judge of the superior court to whom a petition for certiorari is presented enters thereon and signs, an order refusing to grant the writ does not constitute such petition a part of the record of the case to which it relates, and a certified copy of it can not be brought to this court as a portion of such record.” Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Whitehead, 105 Ga. 492. (30 S. E. 814), and cases there cited. “This court can not review a judgment of the judge of the superior court refusing to sanction a petition for certiorari, when no copy of the petition is embodied in the bill of exceptions or attached thereto and verified by the judge.” Evans v. Bloodworth, 105 Ga. 835 (31 S. E. 778). In accordance with the foregoing rulings, the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions must necessarily be granted.

Writ of error dismissed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Whitehead
30 S.E. 814 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)
Evans v. Bloodworth
31 S.E. 778 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 S.E. 275, 30 Ga. App. 242, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-v-bishop-gactapp-1923.