Cunningham v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cunningham v. City of Atlanta

141 S.E. 214, 37 Ga. App. 634, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 542

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 10, 1928

Docket18608

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 141 S.E. 214 (Cunningham v. City of Atlanta) 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

Cunningham v. City of Atlanta, 141 S.E. 214, 37 Ga. App. 634, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 542 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

“In a certiorari ease the answer of the trial judge is the only source from which knowledge óf the facts of the case and the rulings made therein can be derived. Buckner v. State, 115 Ga. 238 (41 S. E. 583). And where, in such a case, the trial judge in his answer states that he can not remember the facts of the case, or what occurred upon the trial, it is useless to sustain exceptions to the answer and to require him to respond more fully. Where such an answer is filed, the judge of the superior court, upon the hearing of the certiorari, can do nothing but overrule the same.” Gilmore v. Georgian Co., 17 Ga. App. 759 (88 S. E. 416) , and cit.; Hicks v. Lindsey, 22 Ga. App. 674 (97 S. E. 101); Macris v. Tsipourses, 35 Ga. App. 671 (5) (134 S. E. 621). Under the ruling just stated, the court in, the instant case did not err in striking the exceptions to the answer of the trial judge or in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

“In a certiorari ease the answer of the trial judge is the only source from which knowledge óf the facts of the case and the rulings made therein can be derived. Buckner v. State, 115 Ga. 238 (41 S. E. 583). And where, in such a case, the trial judge in his answer states that he can not remember the facts of the case, or what occurred upon the trial, it is useless to sustain exceptions to the answer and to require him to respond more fully. Where such an answer is filed, the judge of the superior court, upon the hearing of the certiorari, can do nothing but overrule the same.” Gilmore v. Georgian Co., 17 Ga. App. 759 (88 S. E. 416) , and cit.; Hicks v. Lindsey, 22 Ga. App. 674 (97 S. E. 101); Macris v. Tsipourses, 35 Ga. App. 671 (5) (134 S. E. 621). Under the ruling just stated, the court in, the instant case did not err in striking the exceptions to the answer of the trial judge or in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E. 214, 37 Ga. App. 634, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack