Evans v. Williams
This text of 106 S.E. 321 (Evans v. Williams) 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.
Opinion
It is well settled that an untr aver sed answer of the magistrate to a petition for certiorari, and not the petition, is controlling upon the superior court and this court, and that points made in the petition for certiorari, but not verified by the answer of the magistrate, cannot be considered by either court. In the instant case the only point that the petition for certiorari raises which was insisted upon before this court is that the justice who tried the case was without jurisdiction of the subject-matter, for the reason that the damage sued for was to growing crops that had never been severed from the realty; but the allegations as to these facts, and the evidence in support thereof, set out in the petition, were not verified by the answer of the magistrate. Moreover, it is stated by the magistrate, in his answer to the petition, “that all the allegations [in the petition for certiorari] are not true, ” and it is not directly or clearly specified in the answer what allegations in the petition are untrue and what are true, and the answer was neither trav[413]*413ersed nor excepted to. Under such circumstances this court is unable to say that the judge of the superior court erred in overruling the certiorari.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
106 S.E. 321, 26 Ga. App. 412, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-williams-gactapp-1921.