O'Neal v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

O'Neal v. City of Atlanta

140 S.E. 797, 37 Ga. App. 459, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 338

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 15, 1927

Docket18406

StatusPublished

This text of 140 S.E. 797 (O'Neal v. City of Atlanta) 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

O'Neal v. City of Atlanta, 140 S.E. 797, 37 Ga. App. 459, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 338 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. After conviction of an offense in the recorder’s court of Atlanta, the defendant brought a petition to the superior court for a writ of certiorari. He attached to the petition a bond “for the eventual condemnation money and all future costs in said case.” This does not comply with the statute which requires a bond “conditioned for the personal appearance' of the defendant to abide the final order, judgment, or sentence” óf the court; and the judge of the superior court did not err in dismissing the certiorari. Roberts v. Colquitt, 17 Ga. App. 557 (87 S. E. 816); Hubert v. Thomasville, 18 Ga. App. 756 (90 S. E. 720); Gillespie v. Macon, 19 Ga. App. 1 (90 S. E. 970); Sassene v. Atlanta, 36 Ga. App. 208 (136 S. E. 109).

2. The court properly refused to entertain the motion of plaintiff in error to reinstate the certiorari (which motion had attached to it an appearance bond), because the. motion amounted to an effort to amend the certiorari proceedings or bond, and “the [461]*461certiorari bond can not be amended, because a good and sufficient bond is made a condition precedent to the issuing of the writ, and if the bond is defective the writ is void, and the court without jurisdiction of the case.” Jones v. Gill, 121 Ga. 93, 96 (48 S. E. 688). The appearance bond was not a part of the certiorari proceeding, as shown by the record, at the time the judge of the superior court dismissed the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. After conviction of an offense in the recorder’s court of Atlanta, the defendant brought a petition to the superior court for a writ of certiorari. He attached to the petition a bond “for the eventual condemnation money and all future costs in said case.” This does not comply with the statute which requires a bond “conditioned for the personal appearance' of the defendant to abide the final order, judgment, or sentence” óf the court; and the judge of the superior court did not err in dismissing the certiorari. Roberts v. Colquitt, 17 Ga. App. 557 (87 S. E. 816); Hubert v. Thomasville, 18 Ga. App. 756 (90 S. E. 720); Gillespie v. Macon, 19 Ga. App. 1 (90 S. E. 970); Sassene v. Atlanta, 36 Ga. App. 208 (136 S. E. 109).

2. The court properly refused to entertain the motion of plaintiff in error to reinstate the certiorari (which motion had attached to it an appearance bond), because the. motion amounted to an effort to amend the certiorari proceedings or bond, and “the [461]*461certiorari bond can not be amended, because a good and sufficient bond is made a condition precedent to the issuing of the writ, and if the bond is defective the writ is void, and the court without jurisdiction of the case.” Jones v. Gill, 121 Ga. 93, 96 (48 S. E. 688). The appearance bond was not a part of the certiorari proceeding, as shown by the record, at the time the judge of the superior court dismissed the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 797, 37 Ga. App. 459, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack