Johnston v. Brenau College-Conservatory

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Johnston v. Brenau College-Conservatory

90 S.E. 972, 19 Ga. App. 47, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 26

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 8, 1916

Docket6252

StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.E. 972 (Johnston v. Brenau College-Conservatory) 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

Johnston v. Brenau College-Conservatory, 90 S.E. 972, 19 Ga. App. 47, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 26 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. To a question propounded to the Supreme Court in this case, presenting for determination the precise issue involved therein with reference to the right- to review findings of a judge of the municipal court of Atlanta, or of the appellate division of that court, the Supreme Court replied as follows “If the plaintiff in certiorari sues out the writ to the decision made by the trial judge, he can have the question as to whether the finding is contrary to evidence and contrary to law passed upon; but if, instead of suing out the writ of certiorari then, he takes an appeal to the appellate division, inasmuch as the act eliminates these two general questions on such appeal, he can not have them reviewd by certiorari taken from a decision made by such division.” 146 Ga. 182, 187 (91 S. E. 85).

(a) In this case judgment was rendered without the intervention of a . jury, on October 15, 1914. An appeal was thereupon taken to the appellate division of the municipal court, and on November 5, 1914, was heard by that division. The petitioner in certiorari (the defendant in the court below) applied to a judge of the superior court for the writ of certiorari on November 30, 1914,—more than 30 days after the judgment on the facts. The errors assigned in the petition for certiorari depended upon a consideration of the evidence adduced at the original trial before the judge of the municipal court.

2. Under the answers of the Supreme Court to the various questions certified in this case, and especially under the ruling of that court above quoted, and in the state of the record, the judge of the superior court did not err in declining to sanction the certiorari, regardless of the reason

assigned for the refusal. Judgment affirmed.

Hodges, J., absent.

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

Wade, C. J.

1. To a question propounded to the Supreme Court in this case, presenting for determination the precise issue involved therein with reference to the right- to review findings of a judge of the municipal court of Atlanta, or of the appellate division of that court, the Supreme Court replied as follows “If the plaintiff in certiorari sues out the writ to the decision made by the trial judge, he can have the question as to whether the finding is contrary to evidence and contrary to law passed upon; but if, instead of suing out the writ of certiorari then, he takes an appeal to the appellate division, inasmuch as the act eliminates these two general questions on such appeal, he can not have them reviewd by certiorari taken from a decision made by such division.” 146 Ga. 182, 187 (91 S. E. 85).

(a) In this case judgment was rendered without the intervention of a . jury, on October 15, 1914. An appeal was thereupon taken to the appellate division of the municipal court, and on November 5, 1914, was heard by that division. The petitioner in certiorari (the defendant in the court below) applied to a judge of the superior court for the writ of certiorari on November 30, 1914,—more than 30 days after the judgment on the facts. The errors assigned in the petition for certiorari depended upon a consideration of the evidence adduced at the original trial before the judge of the municipal court.

2. Under the answers of the Supreme Court to the various questions certified in this case, and especially under the ruling of that court above quoted, and in the state of the record, the judge of the superior court did not err in declining to sanction the certiorari, regardless of the reason

assigned for the refusal. Judgment affirmed.

Hodges, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E. 972, 19 Ga. App. 47, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnston-v-brenau-college-conservatory-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack