Smith & Co. v. Hirsch & Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Smith & Co. v. Hirsch & Co.

46 S.E. 637, 119 Ga. 514, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 257

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 13, 1904·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Lamar, J.

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.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, G. J., absent.

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

Lamar, J.

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.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, G. J., absent.

Smith & Co. v. Hirsch & Co., 46 S.E. 637, 119 Ga. 514, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 257 (Ga. 1904).

Pincite

46 S.E. 637 (Smith & Co. v. Hirsch & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related