Nightingale v. Mayor of Brunswick

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Nightingale v. Mayor of Brunswick

114 S.E. 584, 29 Ga. App. 184, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 142

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 14, 1922

Docket13762

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 S.E. 584 (Nightingale v. Mayor of Brunswick) 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

Nightingale v. Mayor of Brunswick, 114 S.E. 584, 29 Ga. App. 184, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 142 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworti-i, J.

Tlie petition for certiorari in this case is fatally defective. No pauper affidavit was filed with, it, nor was a copy of the certiorari bond required by law incorporated in the petition, nor was a certified copy of such a bond attached to said petition as an exhibit, nor does the petition show that the bond alleged to have been given complied with any of the mandatory provisions of the act of 1910 (Park’s Ann. Code, § 5191(a) ). An allegation that the petitioner had given “ the bond required by law in such cases ” is a mere conclusion. Freeman v. City of La-Grange, 27 Ga. App. 46, 47 (107 S. E. 380), and cases cited; Russell v. City of Columbus, 25 Ga. App. 16 (102 S. E. 381); Williams v. City of Dublin, 24 Ga. App. 358 (100 S. E. 777); Powell v. City of Dublin, 24 Ga. App. 359 (100 S. E. 777); Andrews v. City of Edison, 21 Ga. App. 292 (94 S. E. 282); Johns v. City of Tifton, 122 Ga. 734 (50 S. E. 941). Under the rulings in the above and a number of other cases in this court, the judge did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworti-i, J.

Tlie petition for certiorari in this case is fatally defective. No pauper affidavit was filed with, it, nor was a copy of the certiorari bond required by law incorporated in the petition, nor was a certified copy of such a bond attached to said petition as an exhibit, nor does the petition show that the bond alleged to have been given complied with any of the mandatory provisions of the act of 1910 (Park’s Ann. Code, § 5191(a) ). An allegation that the petitioner had given “ the bond required by law in such cases ” is a mere conclusion. Freeman v. City of La-Grange, 27 Ga. App. 46, 47 (107 S. E. 380), and cases cited; Russell v. City of Columbus, 25 Ga. App. 16 (102 S. E. 381); Williams v. City of Dublin, 24 Ga. App. 358 (100 S. E. 777); Powell v. City of Dublin, 24 Ga. App. 359 (100 S. E. 777); Andrews v. City of Edison, 21 Ga. App. 292 (94 S. E. 282); Johns v. City of Tifton, 122 Ga. 734 (50 S. E. 941). Under the rulings in the above and a number of other cases in this court, the judge did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.E. 584, 29 Ga. App. 184, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nightingale-v-mayor-of-brunswick-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack