Hendrix v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hendrix v. State

167 S.E. 318, 46 Ga. App. 228, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 124

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 31, 1932

Docket22830

StatusPublished

This text of 167 S.E. 318 (Hendrix v. State) 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

Hendrix v. State, 167 S.E. 318, 46 Ga. App. 228, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 124 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The record in this case shows that the overruling of the motion for a new trial, the judgment upon which error is assigned in the bill of exceptions, is dated October 24, 1932, and the certificate of the trial judge to the bill of exceptions is dated November 15, 1932, which is more than twenty days from the date of the judgment of which complaint is made. The bill of exceptions recites that 'it was presented to the trial judge on October 15, 1932, which was before the final judgment of which complaint is made, and therefore an impossible date. Since it does not affirmatively appear that the bill of exceptions was presented to the trial judge within the time provided by law, the writ of error must be dismissed. Jones v. State, 146 Ga. 8 (90 S. E. 280); Tuggle v. State, 30 Ga. App. 670 (118 S. E. 778).

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur. Hooper, J., dissents.

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

Per Curiam.

The record in this case shows that the overruling of the motion for a new trial, the judgment upon which error is assigned in the bill of exceptions, is dated October 24, 1932, and the certificate of the trial judge to the bill of exceptions is dated November 15, 1932, which is more than twenty days from the date of the judgment of which complaint is made. The bill of exceptions recites that 'it was presented to the trial judge on October 15, 1932, which was before the final judgment of which complaint is made, and therefore an impossible date. Since it does not affirmatively appear that the bill of exceptions was presented to the trial judge within the time provided by law, the writ of error must be dismissed. Jones v. State, 146 Ga. 8 (90 S. E. 280); Tuggle v. State, 30 Ga. App. 670 (118 S. E. 778).

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur. Hooper, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E. 318, 46 Ga. App. 228, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hendrix-v-state-gactapp-1932.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack