DeLoach v. Kicklighter

Court of Appeals of Georgia

DeLoach v. Kicklighter

74 S.E. 717, 11 Ga. App. 74, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 262

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1912

Docket3936

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 S.E. 717 (DeLoach v. Kicklighter) 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

DeLoach v. Kicklighter, 74 S.E. 717, 11 Ga. App. 74, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 262 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. Following tlie decision of this court in Easterling v. State, 9 Ga. App. 464 (71 S. E. 774), and decisions of the Supreme Court therein cited, where it appears that the clerk of the trial court has failed to transmit to the Coui't of Appeals, within the time prescribed by law, the bill of exceptions and the transcript of the record, and the certificate of the clerk of the trial court shows that an attorney for the plaintiff in error “has been the cause of the delay, by consent, direction, or procurement of any kind,” the writ of error will be dismissed.

2. The bill of exceptions was filed in the trial court December 1, 1911, and in the office of the clerk of the Court of Appeals on January 3, 1912. The transcript of the record was certified on January 1, 1912, and reached the office of the clerk of this court on January 3, 1912. The clerk of the trial court certifies that “the reason that the record in the within case was not sent up earlier is because, the day on which the bill of exceptions was filed, the attorneys for the plaintiff in error took the bill of exceptions and the record out of the clerk’s office, and kept them out until December 30, 1911.” Upon these facts, the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the writ of error must be sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

Trover; from city court of Statesboro — Judge Strange. November 2, 1911.

J. J. E. Anderson, for plaintiff in error. F. T. Lanier, contra.

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

Pottle, J.

1. Following tlie decision of this court in Easterling v. State, 9 Ga. App. 464 (71 S. E. 774), and decisions of the Supreme Court therein cited, where it appears that the clerk of the trial court has failed to transmit to the Coui't of Appeals, within the time prescribed by law, the bill of exceptions and the transcript of the record, and the certificate of the clerk of the trial court shows that an attorney for the plaintiff in error “has been the cause of the delay, by consent, direction, or procurement of any kind,” the writ of error will be dismissed.

2. The bill of exceptions was filed in the trial court December 1, 1911, and in the office of the clerk of the Court of Appeals on January 3, 1912. The transcript of the record was certified on January 1, 1912, and reached the office of the clerk of this court on January 3, 1912. The clerk of the trial court certifies that “the reason that the record in the within case was not sent up earlier is because, the day on which the bill of exceptions was filed, the attorneys for the plaintiff in error took the bill of exceptions and the record out of the clerk’s office, and kept them out until December 30, 1911.” Upon these facts, the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the writ of error must be sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

Trover; from city court of Statesboro — Judge Strange. November 2, 1911.

J. J. E. Anderson, for plaintiff in error. F. T. Lanier, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 S.E. 717, 11 Ga. App. 74, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deloach-v-kicklighter-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack