Elrod v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Elrod v. State

115 S.E. 36, 29 Ga. App. 287, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 254

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1922

Docket14009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 S.E. 36 (Elrod v. State) 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

Elrod v. State, 115 S.E. 36, 29 Ga. App. 287, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 254 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The bill of exceptions in this case is not signed by plaintiff in error or his counsel. Counsel for plaintiff in error moved the court to allow them to amend the bill of exceptions by signing their names thereto, it appearing that counsel for the State agreed that such amendment be allowed. In Lott v. City of Waycross, 152 Ga. 237 (110 S. E. 217), the Supreme Court held: “A paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions, properly certified by the trial judge, but not signed by the plaintiff in error or his counsel, is not a legal bill of exceptions, and cannot be amended in the Supreme Court by attaching counsel’s name thereto. This court has no jurisdiction of the case, and jurisdiction cannot be conferred by a written waiver or consent of the defendant in error that the bill of exceptions be signed by counsel for plaintiff in error nunc pro tunc. It appearing that this court has no jurisdiction, it will dismiss the writ of error of its own motion.” Under the above ruling the bill of exceptions cannot be amended and this court has no jurisdiction of the case.

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, (7. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The bill of exceptions in this case is not signed by plaintiff in error or his counsel. Counsel for plaintiff in error moved the court to allow them to amend the bill of exceptions by signing their names thereto, it appearing that counsel for the State agreed that such amendment be allowed. In Lott v. City of Waycross, 152 Ga. 237 (110 S. E. 217), the Supreme Court held: “A paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions, properly certified by the trial judge, but not signed by the plaintiff in error or his counsel, is not a legal bill of exceptions, and cannot be amended in the Supreme Court by attaching counsel’s name thereto. This court has no jurisdiction of the case, and jurisdiction cannot be conferred by a written waiver or consent of the defendant in error that the bill of exceptions be signed by counsel for plaintiff in error nunc pro tunc. It appearing that this court has no jurisdiction, it will dismiss the writ of error of its own motion.” Under the above ruling the bill of exceptions cannot be amended and this court has no jurisdiction of the case.

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, (7. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 S.E. 36, 29 Ga. App. 287, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elrod-v-state-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack