Fernandez v. Sams

139 S.E.2d 307, 220 Ga. 399, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 566
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 5, 1964
Docket22687
StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.E.2d 307 (Fernandez v. Sams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fernandez v. Sams, 139 S.E.2d 307, 220 Ga. 399, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 566 (Ga. 1964).

Opinion

Head, Presiding Justice.

The only assignment of error in the writ of error is on the denial of a mandamus absolute after the hearing of evidence. The bill of exceptions specifies as material to an understanding of the error complained of: “The transcript of the record of said hearing dated June 10, 1964.” The bill of exceptions was certified by the trial judge on June 30, 1964. A purported brief of evidence in the record was certified by the court reporter on June 15, 1964. There is an order of the trial judge approving this brief of evidence dated August 15, 1964. The deputy clerk of the superior court in transmitting the record to this court stated: “The delay in transmitting this transcript of record is due to the fact the Attorney for the Plaintiff in Error did not file the required Transcript of Evidence until August 15, 1964.” Held:

1. “The trial judge has no authority to approve a brief of evidence after the bill of exceptions has been certified.” Milton v. City of Savannah, 121 Ga. 89 (2) (48 SE 684); Days v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air-Line R. Co., 101 Ga. 785 (29 SE 21); Simpson v. Simpson, 138 Ga. 204 (75 SE 98); Pryor v. Pryor, 162 Ga. 148 (132 SE 895); Cobb v. DeLong, 216 Ga. 794 (120 SE2d 177); Clark v. State, 219 Ga. 680, 683 (135 SE2d 270).

Submitted October 13, 1964 Decided November 5, 1964. Johnson & Johnson, Jean E. Johnson, Sr., for plaintiff in error. Reed, Ingram & Flournoy, R. M. Reed, contra.

2. Since the sole question raised by the assignment of error in the bill of exceptions can be determined only by reference to the evidence, and the brief of evidence attached to the record can not be considered, the judgment of the trial court denying the mandamus absolute must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Cobb v. DeLong
120 S.E.2d 177 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1961)
Clark v. State
135 S.E.2d 270 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1964)
Days v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air-Line Railway Co.
29 S.E. 21 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)
Milton v. City of Savannah
48 S.E. 684 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Simpson v. Simpson
75 S.E. 98 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1912)
Pryor v. Pryor
132 S.E. 895 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 S.E.2d 307, 220 Ga. 399, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernandez-v-sams-ga-1964.