Kelly v. Young

70 S.E. 27, 8 Ga. App. 551, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 38
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 24, 1911
Docket2540
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 S.E. 27 (Kelly v. Young) 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
Kelly v. Young, 70 S.E. 27, 8 Ga. App. 551, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 38 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. The fact that an attorney or party interested in the ease wrote the answer of the magistrate to a writ of certiorari affords ground for an exception to the answer, but not for a motion to dismiss the certiorari.

2. Irrespective of the merits of the ease otherwise, there was no error in sustaining the certiorari, since it was disclosed by the record that the magistrate had rendered judgment in a garnishment case condemning the funds in the hands of the garnishee, without having any evidence that judgment had been rendered against the main defendant. Mitchell v. Great Atlantic etc. Tea Co., 7 Ga. App. 824 (68 S. E. 343), and eases there cited. Judgment affvrmed.

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

Related

Brooks v. Ivy H. Smith Construction Co.
3 S.E.2d 111 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 S.E. 27, 8 Ga. App. 551, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-young-gactapp-1911.