Kirksey v. Geer

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kirksey v. Geer

119 S.E. 440, 31 Ga. App. 52, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 720

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 3, 1923

Docket14998; 14999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 119 S.E. 440 (Kirksey v. Geer) 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

Kirksey v. Geer, 119 S.E. 440, 31 Ga. App. 52, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 720 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

In each of the above-stated cases the petition for mandamus, praying that this court compel the trial judge to certify a bill of exceptions, shows that the fine imposed by the court was paid by the movant after the refusal of the judge to sign the bill of exceptions. The cases, therefore, have become moot, and the applications for mandamus are denied. This is true although the sentence in each case was that unless the defendant paid the fine he must serve a certain number of months in the chain-gang, and although the movant alleges that on the next day after the refusal of the judge to certify the bill of exceptions the sheriff told him that he must pay the fine at once or go to the chain-gang, and, “fearing the hard labor” imposed, he (the movant) paid the fine. See, as to the principle involved, the following eases: Leverelte v. Kilpatrick, 29 Ga. App. 333 (115 S. E. 34); Hoard v. Jordan, 23 Ga. App. 656 (99 S. E. 144); Johnson v. Harris, 13 Ga. App. 618 (79 S. E. 588); Cook v. Lowry, 148 Ga. 516 (97 S. E. 440).

Mandamus nisi denied.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

In each of the above-stated cases the petition for mandamus, praying that this court compel the trial judge to certify a bill of exceptions, shows that the fine imposed by the court was paid by the movant after the refusal of the judge to sign the bill of exceptions. The cases, therefore, have become moot, and the applications for mandamus are denied. This is true although the sentence in each case was that unless the defendant paid the fine he must serve a certain number of months in the chain-gang, and although the movant alleges that on the next day after the refusal of the judge to certify the bill of exceptions the sheriff told him that he must pay the fine at once or go to the chain-gang, and, “fearing the hard labor” imposed, he (the movant) paid the fine. See, as to the principle involved, the following eases: Leverelte v. Kilpatrick, 29 Ga. App. 333 (115 S. E. 34); Hoard v. Jordan, 23 Ga. App. 656 (99 S. E. 144); Johnson v. Harris, 13 Ga. App. 618 (79 S. E. 588); Cook v. Lowry, 148 Ga. 516 (97 S. E. 440).

Mandamus nisi denied.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.E. 440, 31 Ga. App. 52, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirksey-v-geer-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack