Henry v. American Railway Express Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Henry v. American Railway Express Co.

104 S.E. 16, 25 Ga. App. 646, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 128

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 17, 1920

Docket11191

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 104 S.E. 16 (Henry v. American Railway Express Co.) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.E. 16, 25 Ga. App. 646, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-american-railway-express-co-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack