Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Fillingame v. State

Fillingame v. State

109 S.E. 916, 27 Ga. App. 764, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 405
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 13, 1921·No. 12889·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The bill of exceptions in this ease shows that three separate eases against the same defendant were by consent tried together; that there were three separate verdicts of guilty, and three judgments; and by this one bill of exceptions the defendant seeks to have all three of these judgments set aside. This is not permissible, “ There is no authority of law for excepting in the same motion for new trial to the rendition of two verdicts upon the trial of two separate' criminal cases. On the contrary, to the setting aside of either of such verdicts, separate and independent motions are requisite.” Dickey v. State, 101 Ga. 572 (28 S. E. 980). And see Futch v. Mathis, 148 Ga. 558 (97 S. E. 516); Paschal v. Morgan, 19 Ga. App. 245 (91 S. E. 285), and citations; Chambers v. Walker, 26 Ga. App. 586 (106 S. E. 811).

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Fillingame v. State, 109 S.E. 916, 27 Ga. App. 764, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 405 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

109 S.E. 916 (Fillingame v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dempsey v. State
119 S.E.2d 298 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Arnold v. State
306 P.2d 368 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1957)
Johnson v. State
66 S.E.2d 132 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Holtzendore v. State
78 Ga. App. 801 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Holtzendorf v. State
52 S.E.2d 624 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Jones v. State
144 S.E. 145 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Askew v. Powell
117 S.E. 769 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Pless v. State
117 S.E. 770 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Bridges v. State
110 S.E. 412 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)