Salyard v. Salyard

Supreme Court of Georgia

Salyard v. Salyard

63 S.E.2d 398, 207 Ga. 619, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 474

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1951

Docket17343

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 63 S.E.2d 398 (Salyard v. Salyard) 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

Salyard v. Salyard, 63 S.E.2d 398, 207 Ga. 619, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 474 (Ga. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Head, Justice.

The delay in tendering the corrected bill of exceptions in this case was unreasonable. The certificate of the trial judge does not show that the delay was occasioned by providential cause or imperative necessity, and the bill of exceptions must be dismissed. Allison v. Jowers, 94 Ga. 335 (21 S. E. 570); Sutton v. Valdosta Guano Co., 115 Ga. 794 (42 S. E. 94); Walker v. Wood, 119 Ga. 624 (46 S. E. 869); Atkins v. Winter, 121 Ga. 75 (48 S. E. 717); Meador v. Callicott, 129 Ga. 631 (60 S. E. 863); Whitley v. Kelly, 136 Ga. 835 (72 S. E. 346); Mulling v. Exchange Bank of Waycross, 137 Ga. 431 (73 S. E. 654) ; Kent v. Geiger, 138 Ga. 248 (75 S. E. 104); Jensen v. Jacobs Pharmacy Co., 143 Ga. 724 (85 S. E. 873); Hayes v. Chapman, 147 Ga. 626 (2) (95 S. E. 216); Mathis v. Prigmore, 148 Ga. 497 (96 S. E. 1038); Turner v. Turner, 191 Ga. 123 (12 S. E. 2d, 633).

Writ of eiror dismissed.

All the Justices concur. *620 Hams Bullock and James G. Lamar, for plaintiff. Samuel L. Eplan, for defendant.

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

Head, Justice.

The delay in tendering the corrected bill of exceptions in this case was unreasonable. The certificate of the trial judge does not show that the delay was occasioned by providential cause or imperative necessity, and the bill of exceptions must be dismissed. Allison v. Jowers, 94 Ga. 335 (21 S. E. 570); Sutton v. Valdosta Guano Co., 115 Ga. 794 (42 S. E. 94); Walker v. Wood, 119 Ga. 624 (46 S. E. 869); Atkins v. Winter, 121 Ga. 75 (48 S. E. 717); Meador v. Callicott, 129 Ga. 631 (60 S. E. 863); Whitley v. Kelly, 136 Ga. 835 (72 S. E. 346); Mulling v. Exchange Bank of Waycross, 137 Ga. 431 (73 S. E. 654) ; Kent v. Geiger, 138 Ga. 248 (75 S. E. 104); Jensen v. Jacobs Pharmacy Co., 143 Ga. 724 (85 S. E. 873); Hayes v. Chapman, 147 Ga. 626 (2) (95 S. E. 216); Mathis v. Prigmore, 148 Ga. 497 (96 S. E. 1038); Turner v. Turner, 191 Ga. 123 (12 S. E. 2d, 633).

Writ of eiror dismissed.

All the Justices concur. *620 Hams Bullock and James G. Lamar, for plaintiff. Samuel L. Eplan, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 S.E.2d 398, 207 Ga. 619, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salyard-v-salyard-ga-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack