Rusk v. Hill

Supreme Court of Georgia

Rusk v. Hill

49 S.E. 261, 121 Ga. 378, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 160

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 9, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 S.E. 261 (Rusk v. Hill) 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

Rusk v. Hill, 49 S.E. 261, 121 Ga. 378, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 160 (Ga. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Fish, P. J.

1. Where the judgment of a trial court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, with direction to amend such judgment in a designated way, and that the costs incident to the writ of error be taxed against the prevailing party in the court below, an order formally making the judgment of the Supreme Court the judgment of the trial court is not an indispensable prerequisite to the amendment by the latter court of its judgment in accordance with the direction in the judgment of affirmance. Knox v. State, 113 Ga. 929; Brown v. Wilson, 59 Ga. 604, 606.

2. The amended judgment of the trial court was not the place in which .to tax the costs of the writ of error in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court.

3. There was no error in dismissing the affidavit of illegality.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Fish, P. J.

1. Where the judgment of a trial court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, with direction to amend such judgment in a designated way, and that the costs incident to the writ of error be taxed against the prevailing party in the court below, an order formally making the judgment of the Supreme Court the judgment of the trial court is not an indispensable prerequisite to the amendment by the latter court of its judgment in accordance with the direction in the judgment of affirmance. Knox v. State, 113 Ga. 929; Brown v. Wilson, 59 Ga. 604, 606.

2. The amended judgment of the trial court was not the place in which .to tax the costs of the writ of error in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court.

3. There was no error in dismissing the affidavit of illegality.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 S.E. 261, 121 Ga. 378, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rusk-v-hill-ga-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack