Driscoll v. Redwine Bros.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Driscoll v. Redwine Bros.

91 S.E. 784, 19 Ga. App. 486, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 181

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1917

Docket7839

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.E. 784 (Driscoll v. Redwine Bros.) 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

Driscoll v. Redwine Bros., 91 S.E. 784, 19 Ga. App. 486, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 181 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. The place of holding a justice’s court can not be changed otherwise than by giving a duly published notice of the proposed change of location as required by law; and a judgment rendered at any other place than that fixed by law is void. Hilson v. Kitchens, 107 Ga. 230 (33 S. E. 71, 73 Am. St. R. 119) ; Carter v. Atkinson, 12 Ga. App. 390 (77 S. E. 370).

(a) Prom the magistrate’s answer it appears that the judgment in ques- ■ tion was rendered at the place fixed by law, and that this had been the “regular place” of holding the justice’s court for this district for the past eighteen or twenty years. The case is not altered by the fact that the justice’s court for the district had been previously held at a place other than that legally fixed as the place of holding that court.

2. The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

George and Luke, JJ., concur.

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