Clance V. Laurens Banking Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Clance V. Laurens Banking Co.

67 S.E. 836, 7 Ga. App. 667, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 452

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 19, 1910

Docket2412

StatusPublished

This text of 67 S.E. 836 (Clance V. Laurens Banking Co.) 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

Clance V. Laurens Banking Co., 67 S.E. 836, 7 Ga. App. 667, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 452 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Bussell, J.

A motion is made to dismiss the writ of error, upon the ground that there has been no service of the bill of exceptions as required by law. Upon inspection it appears that the judge signed the certificate to the bill of exceptions on January 10, 1910. Service of the bill of exceptions was acknowledged, and copy of all other or further notice or service was waived, on January 1, 1910, nine days before the bill of exceptions was in fact certified. The ruling in Grow v. Hunter, 5 Ga. App. 817 (63 S. E. 938), following the adjudications of the Supreme Court in Tison v. Forrester, 50 Ga. 87; Shealy v. McClung, 50 Ga. 485; Riley v. Echols, 99 Ga. 321 (25 S. E. 649), and Southern Railway Co. v. Brannon, 102 Ga. 578 (27 S. E. 663), is controlling, and the writ of error must be dismissed. As the only apparent entry of service antedates the judge’s certificate to the bill of exceptions, the writ of error has never in fact been served; for the reason that no writ of error is in existence until after the certificate has been signed by the presiding judge, as required by law.

Writ of error dismissed.

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

Bussell, J.

A motion is made to dismiss the writ of error, upon the ground that there has been no service of the bill of exceptions as required by law. Upon inspection it appears that the judge signed the certificate to the bill of exceptions on January 10, 1910. Service of the bill of exceptions was acknowledged, and copy of all other or further notice or service was waived, on January 1, 1910, nine days before the bill of exceptions was in fact certified. The ruling in Grow v. Hunter, 5 Ga. App. 817 (63 S. E. 938), following the adjudications of the Supreme Court in Tison v. Forrester, 50 Ga. 87; Shealy v. McClung, 50 Ga. 485; Riley v. Echols, 99 Ga. 321 (25 S. E. 649), and Southern Railway Co. v. Brannon, 102 Ga. 578 (27 S. E. 663), is controlling, and the writ of error must be dismissed. As the only apparent entry of service antedates the judge’s certificate to the bill of exceptions, the writ of error has never in fact been served; for the reason that no writ of error is in existence until after the certificate has been signed by the presiding judge, as required by law.

Writ of error dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.E. 836, 7 Ga. App. 667, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clance-v-laurens-banking-co-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack