Hackett v. Tate
This text of 89 S.E. 535 (Hackett v. Tate) 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
1. There is no provision of law for the amendment of a petition for certiorari (Singer v. Walker, 77 Ga. 649; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Jackson, 81 Ga. 478, 8 S. E. 209; Neal v. Neal, 122 Ga. 804, 50 S. E. 929; Landrum v. Moss, 1 Ga. App. 216, 57 S. E. 965), or for amending the pauper’s affidavit made, in lieu of the statutory bond, to obtain a writ of certiorari. Simpkins v. Johnson, 3 Ga. App. 437 (60 S. E. 202).
(a) Section 5708 of the Civil Code of 1910, which provides that “where material words are omitted by accident or mistake in an affidavit to appeal in forma pauperis, such omission is amendable,” does not apply to a pauper’s affidavit made in a certiorari case. Simpkins v. Johnson, supra.
(b) A writ of certiorari is void, and can not be amended,^ where the pauper’s affidavit made to obtain the writ uses the conjunctive “and,” instead of the disjunctive “or,” in violation of section 5187 of the Civil Code. Simpkins v. Johnson, supra.
2. Under the foregoing ruling the judge of the superior court did not err in disallowing the proffered amendment- to the pauper’s affidavit attached to the petition for certiorari, or in thereafter 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
89 S.E. 535, 18 Ga. App. 453, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hackett-v-tate-gactapp-1916.