Scott v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Scott v. State

108 S.E.2d 692, 214 Ga. 860, 1959 Ga. LEXIS 374

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1959

Docket20388

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 S.E.2d 692 (Scott 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

Scott v. State, 108 S.E.2d 692, 214 Ga. 860, 1959 Ga. LEXIS 374 (Ga. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Hawkins, Justice.

The only acknowledgment of sendee of the bill of exceptions made in this case was as follows: “I, Dewey Hayes, Solicitor-General of the Waycross Judicial Circuit, hereby waive notice of the time and place when and where the within bill of exceptions in the case of Cleveland Scott, plaintiff in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error, will be presented to Honorable Cecil Roddenberry, Judge of the Superior Court of the Waycross Judicial Circuit, and hereby approve said bill of exceptions -as correct and complete as to the averments of fact therein. This the 31st day of December, 1958.” The bill of exceptions was tendered to and certified by the trial judge on January 6, 1959, but was not served as provided by Code (Ann.) §§ 6-911 and 6-917. This court has many times held that a waiver of the notice pro *861 vided for by Code (Ann.) § 6-908.1, as to the correctness and completeness of the bill of exceptions prior to certification by the trial judge, does not dispense with service of a copy thereof within ten days after certification by the trial judge, and that compliance with Code (Ann.) § 6-911 is essential to give this court jurisdiction. Since there is no return of service, acknowledgment or waiver thereof, on the bill of .exceptions, or in the record, this court has no jurisdiction of the writ of error. Crow v. State, 111 Ga. 645 (36 S. E. 858); Peterson v. Peterson, 209 Ga. 529 (74 S. E. 2d 549); Chitwood v. Chitwood, 210 Ga. 40 (77 S. E. 2d 524); Bardin v. Wender Realty Co., 210 Ga. 243 (78 S. E. 2d 785); Mahon v. Duncan, 210 Ga. 276 (79 S. E. 2d 811); Barbaree v. Coffin, 212 Ga. 370 (92 S. E. 2d 860); Maloney v. Balkcom, 214 Ga. 194 (104 S. E. 2d 127).

Submitted March 9, 1959 Decided April 9, 1959 Rehearing denied May 8, 1959. J. W. Waldroup, J. Laddie Boatright, for plaintiff in error. Dewey Hayes, Solicitor-General, Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Rubye G. Jackson, Deputy Assistant Attorney-General, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hawkins, Justice.

The only acknowledgment of sendee of the bill of exceptions made in this case was as follows: “I, Dewey Hayes, Solicitor-General of the Waycross Judicial Circuit, hereby waive notice of the time and place when and where the within bill of exceptions in the case of Cleveland Scott, plaintiff in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error, will be presented to Honorable Cecil Roddenberry, Judge of the Superior Court of the Waycross Judicial Circuit, and hereby approve said bill of exceptions -as correct and complete as to the averments of fact therein. This the 31st day of December, 1958.” The bill of exceptions was tendered to and certified by the trial judge on January 6, 1959, but was not served as provided by Code (Ann.) §§ 6-911 and 6-917. This court has many times held that a waiver of the notice pro *861 vided for by Code (Ann.) § 6-908.1, as to the correctness and completeness of the bill of exceptions prior to certification by the trial judge, does not dispense with service of a copy thereof within ten days after certification by the trial judge, and that compliance with Code (Ann.) § 6-911 is essential to give this court jurisdiction. Since there is no return of service, acknowledgment or waiver thereof, on the bill of .exceptions, or in the record, this court has no jurisdiction of the writ of error. Crow v. State, 111 Ga. 645 (36 S. E. 858); Peterson v. Peterson, 209 Ga. 529 (74 S. E. 2d 549); Chitwood v. Chitwood, 210 Ga. 40 (77 S. E. 2d 524); Bardin v. Wender Realty Co., 210 Ga. 243 (78 S. E. 2d 785); Mahon v. Duncan, 210 Ga. 276 (79 S. E. 2d 811); Barbaree v. Coffin, 212 Ga. 370 (92 S. E. 2d 860); Maloney v. Balkcom, 214 Ga. 194 (104 S. E. 2d 127).

Submitted March 9, 1959 Decided April 9, 1959 Rehearing denied May 8, 1959. J. W. Waldroup, J. Laddie Boatright, for plaintiff in error. Dewey Hayes, Solicitor-General, Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Rubye G. Jackson, Deputy Assistant Attorney-General, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E.2d 692, 214 Ga. 860, 1959 Ga. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-ga-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack