Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Izlar v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

Izlar v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

134 S.E. 315, 162 Ga. 558, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 237
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 15, 1926
DocketNo. 5308
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 134 S.E. 315 (Izlar v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Izlar v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 134 S.E. 315, 162 Ga. 558, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 237 (Ga. 1926).

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) It appears from an inspection of the bill of exceptions and the endorsements thereon that there was no service of the bill of exceptions and no acknowledgment or waiver of service on the part of the defendant in error. In the affidavit set forth in the statement of facts certain statements are made on oath by one of the counsel for plaintiff in error, which are controverted in a statement embraced in a motion to dismiss, which is also set forth in the statement of facts. We do not, of course, undertake to decide the issue of fact made. We have no jurisdiction to decide it, and besides, it is not necessary; for if the statements contained in the affidavit of counsel for plaintiff in error were not controverted, the bill of exceptions would have to be dismissed. Take it as true that the bill of exceptions was delivered to counsel for defendant in error, and that this counsel himself carried the bill of exceptions to the judge, plaintiff in error could not assume that this was an acknowledgment of service or that it was a waiver of service or amounted to service. And there being no service and no acknowledgment of service or waiver thereof, the bill of exceptions, under the provisions of the statute (Civil Code, § 6160, par. 1), and several decisions made by this court, must be dismissed.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Fricks v. Cole
142 S.E.2d 382 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Johnston v. First National Bank
138 S.E.2d 670 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1964)
Newman v. American Insurance
129 S.E.2d 211 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Hampton v. State
110 S.E.2d 559 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Hulsey v. Atlanta Transit System, Inc.
102 S.E.2d 705 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Tribble v. Chadwick
85 S.E.2d 495 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Benefield v. Luther
81 S.E.2d 513 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1954)
Irwin v. LeCraw
58 S.E.2d 383 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Bodenheimer v. Fulton National Bank of Atlanta
55 S.E.2d 357 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Ginn v. Ginn
42 S.E.2d 923 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
South Side Atlanta Bank v. Anderson
37 S.E.2d 404 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Chapman v. Chapman
1 S.E.2d 697 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Tillman v. Gibson
161 S.E. 630 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
King v. State
149 S.E. 650 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 S.E. 315, 162 Ga. 558, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/izlar-v-central-of-georgia-railway-co-ga-1926.