Hudson v. Cohen

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hudson v. Cohen

122 S.E. 718, 32 Ga. App. 299, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 358

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 26, 1924

Docket14893

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 S.E. 718 (Hudson v. Cohen) 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

Hudson v. Cohen, 122 S.E. 718, 32 Ga. App. 299, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 358 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

Where a defendant against whom judgment has been rendered in the municipal court of Atlanta presents a petition for certiorari to the superior court to review the judgment, in which petition it is alleged that the judgment is erroneous solely upon the ground that the defendant had previously filed in the office of the clerk of the municipal court a demand for a bill of particulars, to which no response had been made, but in which petition it is not alleged either that the defendant complied in full with, the rules of that court in reference to such proceeding or that any judgment of the court was ever invoked thereon, the petition failed to show error, and the judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to sanction the same. Americus Grocery Co. v. Brackett, 119 Ga. 489 (7) (46 S. E. 657); Chambers v. State, 22 Ga. App. 748, 753 (97 S. E. 256); Rea v. McGahee, 12 Ga. App. 326 (77 S. E. 204).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., amd Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

Where a defendant against whom judgment has been rendered in the municipal court of Atlanta presents a petition for certiorari to the superior court to review the judgment, in which petition it is alleged that the judgment is erroneous solely upon the ground that the defendant had previously filed in the office of the clerk of the municipal court a demand for a bill of particulars, to which no response had been made, but in which petition it is not alleged either that the defendant complied in full with, the rules of that court in reference to such proceeding or that any judgment of the court was ever invoked thereon, the petition failed to show error, and the judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to sanction the same. Americus Grocery Co. v. Brackett, 119 Ga. 489 (7) (46 S. E. 657); Chambers v. State, 22 Ga. App. 748, 753 (97 S. E. 256); Rea v. McGahee, 12 Ga. App. 326 (77 S. E. 204).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., amd Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 718, 32 Ga. App. 299, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-cohen-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack