Rutland v. City of Dublin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rutland v. City of Dublin

177 S.E. 819, 50 Ga. App. 242, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 722

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 11, 1934

Docket24382

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 177 S.E. 819 (Rutland v. City of Dublin) 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

Rutland v. City of Dublin, 177 S.E. 819, 50 Ga. App. 242, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 722 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

G-uerry, J.

It is well settled that this court, in determining whether or not the action of the superior court in overruling the certiorari was correct, can look only to the answer of the magistrate before whom the defendant was tried; and where his answer does not disclose that there was a conviction of the defendant,—that is, that a final judgment was rendered against him,—there is nothing for this court or the superior court to consider. Brown v. Gainesville, 125 Ga. 238 (53 S. E. 1002); Landrum v. Moss, 1 Ga. App. 216 (57 S. E. 965); Jessey v. Dean, 122 Ga. 371 (50 S. E. 139); Southern Ry. Co. v. Grace, 4 Ga. App. 563 (61 S. E. 1048); Humphries v. Nalley, 14 Ga. App. 804 (82 S. E. 357). This court can not judicially know whether or not the defendant has actually been convicted, unless that fact is verified by the answer of the magistrate. The answer is entirely silent as to the very essential jurisdictional fact that there has been a final judgment in the trial court; and where no exceptions were taken to the answer by the petitioner, it is fatal. As Judge Powell said in Rodgers v. State, 2 Ga. App. 183 (58 S. E. 416) : “This proposition is too plainly and definitely established to allow the slightest judicial evasion of it, even though the defendant be innocent.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

G-uerry, J.

It is well settled that this court, in determining whether or not the action of the superior court in overruling the certiorari was correct, can look only to the answer of the magistrate before whom the defendant was tried; and where his answer does not disclose that there was a conviction of the defendant,—that is, that a final judgment was rendered against him,—there is nothing for this court or the superior court to consider. Brown v. Gainesville, 125 Ga. 238 (53 S. E. 1002); Landrum v. Moss, 1 Ga. App. 216 (57 S. E. 965); Jessey v. Dean, 122 Ga. 371 (50 S. E. 139); Southern Ry. Co. v. Grace, 4 Ga. App. 563 (61 S. E. 1048); Humphries v. Nalley, 14 Ga. App. 804 (82 S. E. 357). This court can not judicially know whether or not the defendant has actually been convicted, unless that fact is verified by the answer of the magistrate. The answer is entirely silent as to the very essential jurisdictional fact that there has been a final judgment in the trial court; and where no exceptions were taken to the answer by the petitioner, it is fatal. As Judge Powell said in Rodgers v. State, 2 Ga. App. 183 (58 S. E. 416) : “This proposition is too plainly and definitely established to allow the slightest judicial evasion of it, even though the defendant be innocent.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 S.E. 819, 50 Ga. App. 242, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rutland-v-city-of-dublin-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack