Nilsen v. City of LaGrange

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Nilsen v. City of LaGrange

191 S.E. 175, 55 Ga. App. 676, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 451

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 7, 1937

Docket26178

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 191 S.E. 175 (Nilsen v. City of LaGrange) 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

Nilsen v. City of LaGrange, 191 S.E. 175, 55 Ga. App. 676, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 451 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “The filing of the bond, or making of the pauper affidavit, required under the act approved December 10, 1902 (Acts 1902, p. 105) [Code, § 19-214], relating to a certiorari sued out to review the judgment of a municipal court is a condition precedent to the application for certiorari; and a distinct averment in the petition for certiorari that the bond has been filed or the affidavit made is essential to the validity of the petition. Johns v. Tifton, 122 Ga. 734 (50 S. E. 941). The failure to aver in the petition for certiorari that the bond has been filed or the affidavit made renders the petition void.” (Italics ours.) Veazey v. Crawfordville, 126 Ga. 89 (54 S. E. 817).

2. A void petition for certiorari “is an absolute nullity. It is so much waste paper, and the court has no authority to decide ally question which is sought to be raised therein, and can only strike the petition from its files.” Citizens Banking Co. v. Paris, 119 Ga. 517, 518 (46 S. E. 638); Sill v. State, 115 Ga. 833 (42 S. E. 286); Dykes v. Twiggs County, 115 Ga. 698 (42 S. E. 36); Sanvilton v. Phenix Ins. Co., 107 Ga. 728 (33 S. E. 705).

3. In the instant case, which was a certiorari to review the judgment of a recorder’s court, there was no averment in the petition for certiorari that the required bond had been filed or the required pauper affidavit made; and under the above-stated rulings the petition for certiorari was void and a nullity, and should not have been sanctioned. “The judge of the superior court, however, having sanctioned it, committed no error in overruling and dismissing it after a hearing upon its merits. It does not appear in the judgment of dismissal for what reason the certiorari was overruled, but, as the judgment of dismissal was correct, it should nevertheless be affirmed.” Gillespie v. Macon, 19 Ga. App. 1 (90 S. E. 970), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ.f concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. “The filing of the bond, or making of the pauper affidavit, required under the act approved December 10, 1902 (Acts 1902, p. 105) [Code, § 19-214], relating to a certiorari sued out to review the judgment of a municipal court is a condition precedent to the application for certiorari; and a distinct averment in the petition for certiorari that the bond has been filed or the affidavit made is essential to the validity of the petition. Johns v. Tifton, 122 Ga. 734 (50 S. E. 941). The failure to aver in the petition for certiorari that the bond has been filed or the affidavit made renders the petition void.” (Italics ours.) Veazey v. Crawfordville, 126 Ga. 89 (54 S. E. 817).

2. A void petition for certiorari “is an absolute nullity. It is so much waste paper, and the court has no authority to decide ally question which is sought to be raised therein, and can only strike the petition from its files.” Citizens Banking Co. v. Paris, 119 Ga. 517, 518 (46 S. E. 638); Sill v. State, 115 Ga. 833 (42 S. E. 286); Dykes v. Twiggs County, 115 Ga. 698 (42 S. E. 36); Sanvilton v. Phenix Ins. Co., 107 Ga. 728 (33 S. E. 705).

3. In the instant case, which was a certiorari to review the judgment of a recorder’s court, there was no averment in the petition for certiorari that the required bond had been filed or the required pauper affidavit made; and under the above-stated rulings the petition for certiorari was void and a nullity, and should not have been sanctioned. “The judge of the superior court, however, having sanctioned it, committed no error in overruling and dismissing it after a hearing upon its merits. It does not appear in the judgment of dismissal for what reason the certiorari was overruled, but, as the judgment of dismissal was correct, it should nevertheless be affirmed.” Gillespie v. Macon, 19 Ga. App. 1 (90 S. E. 970), and cit.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ.f concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E. 175, 55 Ga. App. 676, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nilsen-v-city-of-lagrange-gactapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack