French v. Long

Court of Appeals of Georgia

French v. Long

104 S.E.2d 155, 97 Ga. App. 656, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 851

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 21, 1958

Docket37210

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 104 S.E.2d 155 (French v. Long) 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

French v. Long, 104 S.E.2d 155, 97 Ga. App. 656, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 851 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Carlisle, Judge.

The Court of Appeals has no original jurisdiction to issue a. writ of mandamus to a judge of the superior court to require liim to perform any act except in aid of a party bringing the case to this court by writ of error and cannot, by such a writ, compel the, trial court to take any step .in a case pending in that court and in which no writ of error has been sued out or applied for. Central R. & Bkg. Co. v. Miller, 91 Ga. 83 (16 S. E. 256); Conwell v. McWhorter, 93 Ga. 254 (19 S. E. 50); Echols v. Candler, 108 Ga. 785 (33 S. E. 811); Savannah, Fla. &c. Ry. Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 113 Ga. 916 (1) (39 S. E. 399); Fountain v. Crum, 148 Ga. 272 (96 S. E. 337); Marlowe v. Worrill, 183 Ga. 275 (188 S. E. 340); McPhail v. Bagley, 96 Ga. App. 179 (99 S. E. 2d 500). Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction to grant a writ of mandamus, as prayed, against the Judge of Houston Superior Court requiring him to set and assess a reasonable supersedeas bond pending his consideration of a *657 motion for a new trial in a criminal case in which no bill of exceptions has been tendered. It follows that the mandamus nisi originally issued by this court upon application was improvidently issued and must be withdrawn, and the

Decided May 21, 1958. D. Lee Churchwell, for petitioner. Wm. M. West, Solicitor-General, contra.

Application for mandamus dismissed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Carlisle, Judge.

The Court of Appeals has no original jurisdiction to issue a. writ of mandamus to a judge of the superior court to require liim to perform any act except in aid of a party bringing the case to this court by writ of error and cannot, by such a writ, compel the, trial court to take any step .in a case pending in that court and in which no writ of error has been sued out or applied for. Central R. & Bkg. Co. v. Miller, 91 Ga. 83 (16 S. E. 256); Conwell v. McWhorter, 93 Ga. 254 (19 S. E. 50); Echols v. Candler, 108 Ga. 785 (33 S. E. 811); Savannah, Fla. &c. Ry. Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 113 Ga. 916 (1) (39 S. E. 399); Fountain v. Crum, 148 Ga. 272 (96 S. E. 337); Marlowe v. Worrill, 183 Ga. 275 (188 S. E. 340); McPhail v. Bagley, 96 Ga. App. 179 (99 S. E. 2d 500). Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction to grant a writ of mandamus, as prayed, against the Judge of Houston Superior Court requiring him to set and assess a reasonable supersedeas bond pending his consideration of a *657 motion for a new trial in a criminal case in which no bill of exceptions has been tendered. It follows that the mandamus nisi originally issued by this court upon application was improvidently issued and must be withdrawn, and the

Decided May 21, 1958. D. Lee Churchwell, for petitioner. Wm. M. West, Solicitor-General, contra.

Application for mandamus dismissed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.E.2d 155, 97 Ga. App. 656, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/french-v-long-gactapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack