Sellers v. Whaley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sellers v. Whaley

67 S.E.2d 241, 84 Ga. App. 715, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 773

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 11, 1951

Docket33680

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 S.E.2d 241 (Sellers v. Whaley) 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

Sellers v. Whaley, 67 S.E.2d 241, 84 Ga. App. 715, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 773 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.'

The act of 1946, pp. 726, 735, 739 (Code, Ann., §§ 6-908.1, 6-909), requiring notice to the opposite party of the presentation of a bill of exceptions and providing how objections may be removed had for its primary purpose notice to the defendant in error. It does not require that the plaintiff in error be present at the time the judge passes on the sufficiency of the bill of exceptions, nor does it authorize the judge to require that the attorney or attorneys for the plaintiff in error be present. If the plaintiff in error and attorneys wish to take their chances on being required to correct or amend the bill of exceptions and to pursue their legal remedy if the requirement is wrong, it is their right and privilege to do so. We do not think that an attorney is in contempt of court for failing to appear at such a "hearing” upon oral “direction” of the judge.

The court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition, and the subsequent proceedings were nugatory.'

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, C. J., and Worrill, J., concur.

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

Felton, J.'

The act of 1946, pp. 726, 735, 739 (Code, Ann., §§ 6-908.1, 6-909), requiring notice to the opposite party of the presentation of a bill of exceptions and providing how objections may be removed had for its primary purpose notice to the defendant in error. It does not require that the plaintiff in error be present at the time the judge passes on the sufficiency of the bill of exceptions, nor does it authorize the judge to require that the attorney or attorneys for the plaintiff in error be present. If the plaintiff in error and attorneys wish to take their chances on being required to correct or amend the bill of exceptions and to pursue their legal remedy if the requirement is wrong, it is their right and privilege to do so. We do not think that an attorney is in contempt of court for failing to appear at such a "hearing” upon oral “direction” of the judge.

The court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition, and the subsequent proceedings were nugatory.'

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, C. J., and Worrill, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.E.2d 241, 84 Ga. App. 715, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sellers-v-whaley-gactapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack