Clary v. Nash

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Clary v. Nash

65 S.E. 301, 6 Ga. App. 549, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 378

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 31, 1909

Docket1926

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 65 S.E. 301 (Clary v. Nash) 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

Clary v. Nash, 65 S.E. 301, 6 Ga. App. 549, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 378 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The certificate to the bill of exceptions begins as follows: “I do certify that the foregoing bill of exceptions is true, except that it appeared that the property levied upon was not left with the levying officer and no replevy bond was given,” etc. It therefore appears that the trial judge does not unqualifiedly verify the bill of exceptions. If when the bill of exceptions is presented to the trial judge it needs correction or qualification, the proper amendment should be made in the bill of exceptions itself; and where there is an attempt to limit its verity by a recital in the certificate, the proceeding is nugatory and does not confer (jurisdiction upon this court. Fort v. Sheffield, 108 Ga. 781 (33 S. [550]*550E. 660); Sanges v. State, 110 Ga. 260 (34 S. E. 327); McCullough v. Bank, 111 Ga. 131 (36 S. E. 465); Taylor v. Howard, 112 Ga. 347 (37 S. E. 392); Bond v. Winn, 113 Ga. 19 (5), (38 S. E. 328). Writ of error dismissed.

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

Powell, J.

The certificate to the bill of exceptions begins as follows: “I do certify that the foregoing bill of exceptions is true, except that it appeared that the property levied upon was not left with the levying officer and no replevy bond was given,” etc. It therefore appears that the trial judge does not unqualifiedly verify the bill of exceptions. If when the bill of exceptions is presented to the trial judge it needs correction or qualification, the proper amendment should be made in the bill of exceptions itself; and where there is an attempt to limit its verity by a recital in the certificate, the proceeding is nugatory and does not confer (jurisdiction upon this court. Fort v. Sheffield, 108 Ga. 781 (33 S. [550]*550E. 660); Sanges v. State, 110 Ga. 260 (34 S. E. 327); McCullough v. Bank, 111 Ga. 131 (36 S. E. 465); Taylor v. Howard, 112 Ga. 347 (37 S. E. 392); Bond v. Winn, 113 Ga. 19 (5), (38 S. E. 328). Writ of error dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 S.E. 301, 6 Ga. App. 549, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clary-v-nash-gactapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack