Sapp v. Clark

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sapp v. Clark

178 S.E. 759, 50 Ga. App. 551, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 213

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 9, 1935

Docket24104

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 S.E. 759 (Sapp v. Clark) 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

Sapp v. Clark, 178 S.E. 759, 50 Ga. App. 551, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 213 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

Alter the presentation of a bill of exceptions to the trial judge for certification, the plaintiff in error or his counsel should be diligent in obtaining its certification. Where a bill of exceptions was presented to the trial judge on May 2, 1931, notwithstanding the presentation was made within the time provided by law, yet where it was not certified by the trial' judge until April 7, 1934, over two years and eleven months thereafter, and where it does not appear that the delay in certification was not due to the fault of the plaintiff in error or his counsel, and it does not appear that the plaintiff in error or his counsel showed any diTgence, such as applying for a mandamus to compel a certification of the bill of exceptions or otherwise, the delay in certification is due to the fault of the plaintiff in error or his counsel. Duke v. Kelly, 136 Ga. 832 (72 S. E. 250). The motion to dismiss the writ of error is sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

J enkims, P. J, and Sutton, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

Alter the presentation of a bill of exceptions to the trial judge for certification, the plaintiff in error or his counsel should be diligent in obtaining its certification. Where a bill of exceptions was presented to the trial judge on May 2, 1931, notwithstanding the presentation was made within the time provided by law, yet where it was not certified by the trial' judge until April 7, 1934, over two years and eleven months thereafter, and where it does not appear that the delay in certification was not due to the fault of the plaintiff in error or his counsel, and it does not appear that the plaintiff in error or his counsel showed any diTgence, such as applying for a mandamus to compel a certification of the bill of exceptions or otherwise, the delay in certification is due to the fault of the plaintiff in error or his counsel. Duke v. Kelly, 136 Ga. 832 (72 S. E. 250). The motion to dismiss the writ of error is sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

J enkims, P. J, and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 S.E. 759, 50 Ga. App. 551, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sapp-v-clark-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack