Martin v. Murphy

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Martin v. Murphy

130 S.E. 216, 34 Ga. App. 488, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 337

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 10, 1925

Docket16643

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.E. 216 (Martin v. Murphy) 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

Martin v. Murphy, 130 S.E. 216, 34 Ga. App. 488, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 337 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. This ease was tried in the municipal court of Atlanta, and the certiorari was applied for more than thirty days after the rendition of the judgment complained of, but within thirty days of the overruling of the oral motion for a new trial. Therefore, under repeated rulings of this court, only the exceptions to the judgment refusing a new trial could be considered upon the hearing of the certiorari.

2. The petition for certiorari sets forth the grounds of the motion for a new trial, and it does not appear that the judge of the superior court abused his discretion in the first grant of a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. H. A. Allen, for plaintiff. R. B. Lambert, for defendant.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. This ease was tried in the municipal court of Atlanta, and the certiorari was applied for more than thirty days after the rendition of the judgment complained of, but within thirty days of the overruling of the oral motion for a new trial. Therefore, under repeated rulings of this court, only the exceptions to the judgment refusing a new trial could be considered upon the hearing of the certiorari.

2. The petition for certiorari sets forth the grounds of the motion for a new trial, and it does not appear that the judge of the superior court abused his discretion in the first grant of a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. H. A. Allen, for plaintiff. R. B. Lambert, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 216, 34 Ga. App. 488, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-murphy-gactapp-1925.