Dixon v. City of Waynesboro
74 S.E. 302, 10 Ga. App. 801, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 697
Opinion
This being' a certiorari sued out to réview the judgment of a
municipal court, and there being in the petition no averment that the bond required by the act approved December 10, 1902 (Acts 1902, p. 105), had been given, or the pauper affidavit filed, and it nowhere appearing in the record that the bond or the pauper affidavit had been filed, there was' no error in dismissing tbe certiorari. McDonald v. Ludowici, 3 Ga. App. 654; Allen v. Atlanta, 7 Ga. App. 99; Veassey v. Crawfordville, 126 Ga. 89. . Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dixon v. City of Waynesboro, 74 S.E. 302, 10 Ga. App. 801, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).
74 S.E. 302 (Dixon v. City of Waynesboro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Veazey v. Mayor of Crawfordville
54 S.E. 817 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
McDonald v. Town of Ludowici
60 S.E. 337 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Allen v. City of Atlanta
66 S.E. 255 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)