Perkins v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Perkins v. State

55 S.E. 501, 126 Ga. 578, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 468

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 8, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 55 S.E. 501 (Perkins v. State) 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

Perkins v. State, 55 S.E. 501, 126 Ga. 578, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 468 (Ga. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. This case is controlled by the previous rulings of this court in which it is held that there is no law authorizing the making of a motion for a hew trial in vacation; that an extraordinary motion so filed is a mere nullity; that it is erroneous for a judge of the superior court to take jurisdiction of such a motion; and that when he does so and undertakes to decide it upon its merits, the judgment will be reversed. Collier v. State, 115 Ga. 17; Jinks v. State, Id. 243; Johnson v. State, 116 Ga. 535; Brinkley v. Buchanan, 55 Ga. 342; East Tenn. R. Co. v. Whitlock, 75 Ga. 77; Ferrill v. Marks, 76 Ga. 21.

2. The motion for new trial in this case purporting to be based on extraordinary grounds appears to have been made and decided in vacation, [579]*579and. nothing was done in respect to it either at the term when the trial was had or at any subsequent term, so as to give it vitality, under the ruling in Blalock v. Waggoner, 82 Ga. 122.

"Argued October 17, Decided November 8, 1906.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Seabrook. Effingham superior court. July 10, 1906.

Twiggs & Oliver, Edgar J. Oliver, and O. T. Guyton, for plaintiff in error. John O. Hart, attorney-general, and Livingston Kenan, solicitor-general, contra.

3. The judgment is accordingly reversed, and direction is given that the motion itself and the action of the judge thereon be hereafter, in the superior court of Effingham county, ignored and treated as a mere nullity.

Judgment reversed, with direction.

All the Justices concur.

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

Lumpkin, J.

1. This case is controlled by the previous rulings of this court in which it is held that there is no law authorizing the making of a motion for a hew trial in vacation; that an extraordinary motion so filed is a mere nullity; that it is erroneous for a judge of the superior court to take jurisdiction of such a motion; and that when he does so and undertakes to decide it upon its merits, the judgment will be reversed. Collier v. State, 115 Ga. 17; Jinks v. State, Id. 243; Johnson v. State, 116 Ga. 535; Brinkley v. Buchanan, 55 Ga. 342; East Tenn. R. Co. v. Whitlock, 75 Ga. 77; Ferrill v. Marks, 76 Ga. 21.

2. The motion for new trial in this case purporting to be based on extraordinary grounds appears to have been made and decided in vacation, [579]*579and. nothing was done in respect to it either at the term when the trial was had or at any subsequent term, so as to give it vitality, under the ruling in Blalock v. Waggoner, 82 Ga. 122.

"Argued October 17, Decided November 8, 1906.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Seabrook. Effingham superior court. July 10, 1906.

Twiggs & Oliver, Edgar J. Oliver, and O. T. Guyton, for plaintiff in error. John O. Hart, attorney-general, and Livingston Kenan, solicitor-general, contra.

3. The judgment is accordingly reversed, and direction is given that the motion itself and the action of the judge thereon be hereafter, in the superior court of Effingham county, ignored and treated as a mere nullity.

Judgment reversed, with direction.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.E. 501, 126 Ga. 578, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perkins-v-state-ga-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack