Patterson v. Hendrix

72 Ga. 204
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 21, 1883·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

1. Where a case was argued during the term of court, and a consent order was taken, allowing the presiding judge to decide the same in chambers within thirty days from the date of +ho order, time was of the essence of the consent, and a judgment rendered in chambers after the time allowed had expired was coram non judice and void, and on exception will be reversed. Code, §249 ; 60 Ga., 123; 55 Id., 258 ; 59 Id., 628.

2. Two distinct persons having no privity of any sort between them, except that both had failed to obey a summons todo road duty, and had been tried therefor by the commissioners’ court, cannot unite in one certiorari to the judgments against them.'

Judgment reversed.

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

Patterson v. Hendrix, 72 Ga. 204 (Ga. 1883).

72 Ga. 204 (Patterson v. Hendrix) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ambos v. Chastain
43 S.E.2d 592 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Carder v. Arundel Mortgage Co.
169 S.E. 302 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Shouse v. Gober
167 S.E. 316 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Robinson
100 A. 373 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1917)
Odum & Cochran v. Macon & Birmingham Railway Co.
45 S.E. 619 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Haralson County v. Pittman
31 S.E. 183 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)