Smith & Co. v. Hirsch & Co.
This text of 46 S.E. 637 (Smith & Co. v. Hirsch & Co.) 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.
Opinion
There is no entry of service of the bill of exceptions endorsed thereon or annexed thereto; and for this reason, and on the authority of Akerman v. Neel, 70 Ga. 728, Crow v. State, 111 Ga. 645, and Hewell v. State, 117 Ga. 752, the motion to dismiss must be sustained. Attached to the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error is an affidavit of the clerk of the superior court, giving reasons why there had been no service or acknowledgment of service. The cases above cited show that such affidavit can not be considered in answer to a motion to dismiss.
Writ of error dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
46 S.E. 637, 119 Ga. 514, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-co-v-hirsch-co-ga-1904.