Hight v. Atlanta Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hight v. Atlanta Telephone & Telegraph Co.

89 S.E. 430, 18 Ga. App. 432, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 394

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 12, 1916·No. 7191·Published

Opinion

Hodges, J.

The answer to the petition for certiorari not affirmatively showing that a final judgment was rendered, the judge of the superior court did not err in dismissing the certiorari. A motion to postpone the hearing of the certiorari in the superior court was not the remedy. Exceptions to the answer should have been taken by the party whose rights were affected by the incomplete answer. Civil Code, § 5196; Ford v. Toomer, 116 Ga. 795 (43 S. E. 45); Stoner v. Magins, 116 Ga. 797 (43 S. E. 45). Judgment affirmed.

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

Hodges, J.

The answer to the petition for certiorari not affirmatively showing that a final judgment was rendered, the judge of the superior court did not err in dismissing the certiorari. A motion to postpone the hearing of the certiorari in the superior court was not the remedy. Exceptions to the answer should have been taken by the party whose rights were affected by the incomplete answer. Civil Code, § 5196; Ford v. Toomer, 116 Ga. 795 (43 S. E. 45); Stoner v. Magins, 116 Ga. 797 (43 S. E. 45). Judgment affirmed.

Hight v. Atlanta Telephone & Telegraph Co., 89 S.E. 430, 18 Ga. App. 432, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 394 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

89 S.E. 430 (Hight v. Atlanta Telephone & Telegraph Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related