Johnson v. Kent

Supreme Court of Georgia

Johnson v. Kent

129 S.E. 102, 160 Ga. 792, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 260

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 13, 1925

DocketNo. 4963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 S.E. 102 (Johnson v. Kent) 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

Johnson v. Kent, 129 S.E. 102, 160 Ga. 792, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 260 (Ga. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Hines, J.

1. Attached to the bill of exceptions is a certificate in due form for the judge’s signature, but the same is unsigned by the judge. Beneath the blank prepared for the judge’s signature is this memorandum: “In considering the above case I considered the deed attached to the agreed statement of facts as controlling and fixing the rights of the parties, and based my judgment thereon. I did not consider the oral testimony as altering the rights of the parties.” This memorandum is dated and signed by the judge officially. Keld, that the bill of exceptions has not been duly certified and for lack of such certificate the writ of error must be dismissed. Daniel v. First National Bank of Millen, 159 Ga. 127 (124 S. E. 881).

2. Besides, service of what purports to be the bill of exceptions was not effected, acknowledged, or waived; and for this reason the writ of error must be dismissed. Morris v. Wilson, 159 Ga. 522 (126 S. E. 795). Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur. F. G. Bait and. William, Woodrum, for plaintiffs in error. G. G. Delete, contra.

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

Hines, J.

1. Attached to the bill of exceptions is a certificate in due form for the judge’s signature, but the same is unsigned by the judge. Beneath the blank prepared for the judge’s signature is this memorandum: “In considering the above case I considered the deed attached to the agreed statement of facts as controlling and fixing the rights of the parties, and based my judgment thereon. I did not consider the oral testimony as altering the rights of the parties.” This memorandum is dated and signed by the judge officially. Keld, that the bill of exceptions has not been duly certified and for lack of such certificate the writ of error must be dismissed. Daniel v. First National Bank of Millen, 159 Ga. 127 (124 S. E. 881).

2. Besides, service of what purports to be the bill of exceptions was not effected, acknowledged, or waived; and for this reason the writ of error must be dismissed. Morris v. Wilson, 159 Ga. 522 (126 S. E. 795). Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur. F. G. Bait and. William, Woodrum, for plaintiffs in error. G. G. Delete, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.E. 102, 160 Ga. 792, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-kent-ga-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack