Norrell v. Morrison

25 S.E. 700, 99 Ga. 317
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 18, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 25 S.E. 700 (Norrell v. Morrison) 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
Norrell v. Morrison, 25 S.E. 700, 99 Ga. 317 (Ga. 1896).

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where a case is tried in a justice’s court and the losing party desires to appeal, he must enter the appeal within four days from the rendition of the judgment complained of; and where it does not appear either from an entry of filing or from extrinsic evidence that an appeal was actually filed with the magistrate rendering the judgment within the time above stated, the same should, on motion, be dismissed.

2. This case differs from that of Harvey et al. v. Allen, 94 Ga. 455. There it affirmatively appeared that an appeal from a decision of the court of ordinary actually arrived at the ordinary’s post-office in due time; and under the peculiar facts of that case this was treated as a filing with the ordinary himself.

Judgment in each case reversed.

Execution having ben levied, claim was interposed, and on the trial w<as dismissed in a justice’s court of Lumpkin county. Eour days later, the claimant executed in Fulton county a bond for appealing the case to the superior court. There was no entry showing when, if ever, the appeal was filed in the justice’s court. In the superior court plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that it did not affirmatively appear that the appeal had been filed within the time required by law, nor that it had ever been filed in tbe justice’s court. Olaim'ant’s counsel stated that the appeal bond was sent to the justice of the peace by mail, and that it -could h'ave reached him by due course of mail in due 'time; and this Was not denied. The motion was overruled. W. A. Charters and W. S. Huff, for plaintiffs. R. H. Baker, contra.

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

Related

State of Georgia v. Jones
187 S.E.2d 902 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Johansson v. Towson
177 F. Supp. 729 (M.D. Georgia, 1959)
Holton v. Kea
14 S.E.2d 572 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Cohen v. Brunson
80 S.E. 679 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Staton v. Exchange Bank
80 S.E. 23 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)
Broussard v. Brandenberg
70 S.E. 159 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Southern Railway Co. v. Empire Printing & Box Co.
47 S.E. 542 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Griffith v. Mitchell
43 S.E. 742 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 S.E. 700, 99 Ga. 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norrell-v-morrison-ga-1896.