Hoyt v. Lunsford

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hoyt v. Lunsford

110 S.E.2d 565, 100 Ga. App. 194, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 569

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 17, 1959

Docket37808

StatusPublished

This text of 110 S.E.2d 565 (Hoyt v. Lunsford) 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

Hoyt v. Lunsford, 110 S.E.2d 565, 100 Ga. App. 194, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 569 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, Judge.

“A waiver of the notice provided for by Code (Ann.) § 6-908.1 as to the correctness and completeness of the bill of exceptions prior to certification by the trial judge does not dispense with service of a copy of the bill [195]*195after approval by the trial judge as provided by Code (Ann.) § 6-911.” Barbaree v. Coffin, 212 Ga. 370 (92 S. E. 2d 860). Neither the acknowledgement of tender of the bill of exceptions, dated June 12, 1959, nor the letter to the trial court dated June 15, 1959, stating that the defendants in error had no objections to offer to the bill of exceptions constitutes an acknowledgment of service of the bill of exception’s in this case the certification of which is dated June 16, 1959. Where Code (Ann.) § 6-911 is not complied with, the bill of exceptions must be

Decided September 17, 1959. Greer, Henning & Morris, Richard G. Greer, for plaintiff in error. Hudson ■& Hudson, John H. Hudson, Pauline E. Cousins, contra.

Dismissed.

Gardner, P.J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

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

Townsend, Judge.

“A waiver of the notice provided for by Code (Ann.) § 6-908.1 as to the correctness and completeness of the bill of exceptions prior to certification by the trial judge does not dispense with service of a copy of the bill [195]*195after approval by the trial judge as provided by Code (Ann.) § 6-911.” Barbaree v. Coffin, 212 Ga. 370 (92 S. E. 2d 860). Neither the acknowledgement of tender of the bill of exceptions, dated June 12, 1959, nor the letter to the trial court dated June 15, 1959, stating that the defendants in error had no objections to offer to the bill of exceptions constitutes an acknowledgment of service of the bill of exception’s in this case the certification of which is dated June 16, 1959. Where Code (Ann.) § 6-911 is not complied with, the bill of exceptions must be

Decided September 17, 1959. Greer, Henning & Morris, Richard G. Greer, for plaintiff in error. Hudson ■& Hudson, John H. Hudson, Pauline E. Cousins, contra.

Dismissed.

Gardner, P.J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E.2d 565, 100 Ga. App. 194, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-lunsford-gactapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack