Mulling v. Exchange Bank

Supreme Court of Georgia

Mulling v. Exchange Bank

73 S.E. 654, 137 Ga. 431, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 37

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 654 (Mulling v. Exchange Bank) 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

Mulling v. Exchange Bank, 73 S.E. 654, 137 Ga. 431, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 37 (Ga. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Eish, C. J.

1. Where a bill of exceptions appears to have been signed by the trial judge on a given date, and contains no affirmative statement that it was tendered at a different date, the legal presumption is that it was tendered on the date of the certificate. Allison & Davis v. Jowers, 94 Ga. 335 (21 S. E. 570).

2. A bill of exceptions, having been tendered the trial judge for his certificate on a given date, was returned by him to counsel for plaintiff in error for correction, and was certified at a date 50 days later. In the absence of any statement in the certificate as to the cause of the delay, it must be held that such delay was unreasonable, and that therefore the bill of exceptions must be dismissed. Atkins v. Winter, 121 Ga. 75 (48 S. E. 717); Dykes v. Brock, 128 Ga. 395 (57 S. E. 700); Meador v. Callicott, 129 Ga. 631 (60 S. E. 863).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Bill, J., not presiding.

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

Eish, C. J.

1. Where a bill of exceptions appears to have been signed by the trial judge on a given date, and contains no affirmative statement that it was tendered at a different date, the legal presumption is that it was tendered on the date of the certificate. Allison & Davis v. Jowers, 94 Ga. 335 (21 S. E. 570).

2. A bill of exceptions, having been tendered the trial judge for his certificate on a given date, was returned by him to counsel for plaintiff in error for correction, and was certified at a date 50 days later. In the absence of any statement in the certificate as to the cause of the delay, it must be held that such delay was unreasonable, and that therefore the bill of exceptions must be dismissed. Atkins v. Winter, 121 Ga. 75 (48 S. E. 717); Dykes v. Brock, 128 Ga. 395 (57 S. E. 700); Meador v. Callicott, 129 Ga. 631 (60 S. E. 863).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Bill, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 654, 137 Ga. 431, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulling-v-exchange-bank-ga-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack