Francis v. Porter
This text of 91 S.E. 68 (Francis v. Porter) 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.
Opinion
1. By the Civil Code (1910), § 5447, it is provided: “Upon refusal to grant the mandamus nisi, the petitioner may have his bill of exceptions to the Supreme Court, as in cases of the granting and refusing of injunctions; and either party dissatisfied with the judgment on the hearing of the answer to the mandamus nisi may likewise file his bill of exceptions.” Section 6153 provides: “In all eases where an application for an injunction . . is granted or refused; . . granting or refusing application for mandamus, or other extraordinary remedy, . . the bill of exceptions shall be tendered and signed within twenty days from the rendition of the decision,” etc.
2. Upon a petition for mandamus, presented to a judge of the superior [246]*246court, the following order was passed: “At chambers. The foregoing petition considered, and mandamus nisi refused. This March 28, 1916.” The bill of exceptions assigning error upon this order was presented on April 24, 1916. Held, that the writ of error must be dismissed as not having been presented within the time required by law. See, in this connection, Holder v. Jelks, 116 Ga. 134 (42 S. E. 400); Sistrunk v. Mangum, 138 Ga. 222 (75 S. E. 7).
Writ of error dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
91 S.E. 68, 146 Ga. 245, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-porter-ga-1916.