Henry v. American Railway Express Co.

104 S.E. 16, 25 Ga. App. 646, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 128
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 17, 1920·No. 11191·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The answer to the writ of certiorari not having been filed at the term to which it was returnable, and no order having been taken directing the magistrate to answer, the petition for certiorari should, upon this ground, on motion of the defendant in certiorari, have been dismissed. High v. Georgia Railway & Power Co., 12 Ga. App. 505 (77 S. E. 588). This is true although the answer was filed before the case was reached in its order for a hearing, and notwithstanding there was a local practice of permitting such delay in the filing of answers to writs of certiorari.

2. A certificate by the magistrate admitting the truth of the allegations in the petition for certiorari, which is entered upon or attached to the petition before the petition has been sanctioned or the writ of certiorari has been issued, cannot be considered as an answer to the writ of certiorari. The magistrate has no authority to answer a certiorari until after -the issuance of the writ.

3. It was' error to overrule the motion to dismiss the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Henry v. American Railway Express Co., 104 S.E. 16, 25 Ga. App. 646, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 128 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

104 S.E. 16 (Henry v. American Railway Express Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Atlanta v. Schaffer
264 S.E.2d 6 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1980)
Turner v. State
70 S.E.2d 45 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Thompson v. State Compensation Commissioner
54 S.E.2d 13 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1949)
Kirkland v. Luke
117 S.E. 259 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Mertins v. Gavalos
111 S.E. 684 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)