Chitty v. Oliver

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Chitty v. Oliver

79 S.E. 496, 13 Ga. App. 556, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 254

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 7, 1913

Docket4694

StatusPublished

This text of 79 S.E. 496 (Chitty v. Oliver) 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

Chitty v. Oliver, 79 S.E. 496, 13 Ga. App. 556, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 254 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. It affirmatively appears, from the certificate of the clerk of the lower court, that the delay in the transmission of the bill of exceptions was not due to any act of omission or commission on the part of counsel for the plaintiff in error; and the failure to transmit á transcript of the pleadings, as appears from the recitals of the bill of exceptions, was due to the fact that the case was tried upon an agreement in open court as to the contents of the lost or destroyed originals, which were not shown to have been in the possession of counsel for the plaintiff in error; for this reason the writ of error should not be dismissed.

2. This case is controlled by the ruling of this court in Hodges v. Gillespie, ante, 63 (78 S. E. 832). The judge erred in refusing a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

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

Russell, J.

1. It affirmatively appears, from the certificate of the clerk of the lower court, that the delay in the transmission of the bill of exceptions was not due to any act of omission or commission on the part of counsel for the plaintiff in error; and the failure to transmit á transcript of the pleadings, as appears from the recitals of the bill of exceptions, was due to the fact that the case was tried upon an agreement in open court as to the contents of the lost or destroyed originals, which were not shown to have been in the possession of counsel for the plaintiff in error; for this reason the writ of error should not be dismissed.

2. This case is controlled by the ruling of this court in Hodges v. Gillespie, ante, 63 (78 S. E. 832). The judge erred in refusing a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E. 496, 13 Ga. App. 556, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chitty-v-oliver-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack