City of Atlanta v. Copeland

Court of Appeals of Georgia

City of Atlanta v. Copeland

96 S.E. 9, 22 Ga. App. 402, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 363

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1918

Docket9424

StatusPublished

This text of 96 S.E. 9 (City of Atlanta v. Copeland) 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

City of Atlanta v. Copeland, 96 S.E. 9, 22 Ga. App. 402, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 363 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

An approval of á certiorari bond by the clerk of the municipal court of Atlanta is not such an approval as is required by the Civil Code (1910.), § 5185. In order to meet the requirements of this section, a certiorari from the appellate division of that court must show the giving of the proper certiorari bond approved by the judges from whose judgment certiorari is prayed. Georgian Co. v. Button, 18 Ga. App. 507 (89 S. E. 601). The court did not err in dismissing the first certiorari. The court having properly dismissed the first certiordri upon the ground that it was void (see Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Dacus, ante, 297, 90 S. E. 8), the plaintiff in error could not recommence the certiorari, and it was not error to dismiss the second certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Jenhins, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

An approval of á certiorari bond by the clerk of the municipal court of Atlanta is not such an approval as is required by the Civil Code (1910.), § 5185. In order to meet the requirements of this section, a certiorari from the appellate division of that court must show the giving of the proper certiorari bond approved by the judges from whose judgment certiorari is prayed. Georgian Co. v. Button, 18 Ga. App. 507 (89 S. E. 601). The court did not err in dismissing the first certiorari. The court having properly dismissed the first certiordri upon the ground that it was void (see Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Dacus, ante, 297, 90 S. E. 8), the plaintiff in error could not recommence the certiorari, and it was not error to dismiss the second certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Jenhins, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 S.E. 9, 22 Ga. App. 402, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-atlanta-v-copeland-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack