Smith v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. City of Atlanta

174 S.E. 171, 48 Ga. App. 853, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 229

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 29, 1934

Docket23896

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 174 S.E. 171 (Smith v. City of Atlanta) 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

Smith v. City of Atlanta, 174 S.E. 171, 48 Ga. App. 853, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 229 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where a- certiorari is applied for after the expiration of the statutory period from the date of the judgment complained of, the petition should show on its face that it is a renewal of a previously dismissed certiorari sued out within the proper time in the same cause, and that the renewal is within six months from the date of the dismissal of the previous certiorari. Unless all of these facts appear in the petition for certiorari, the judge of the superior court has no jurisdiction of the case, and should refuse to sanction the petition; and if such a petition is sanctioned, it should be dismissed when a proper motion therefor is made upon the hearing of the certiorari. Morris v. Battey, 31 Ga. App. 438 (2) (121 S. E. 125) ; Barber v. Rome, 39 Ga. App. 225 (146 S. E. 856) ; Hogan v. State, 127 Ga. 349 (56 S. E. 409).

2. Under the foregoing rulings and the facts ' of this case, the certiorari was properly dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre amd Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where a- certiorari is applied for after the expiration of the statutory period from the date of the judgment complained of, the petition should show on its face that it is a renewal of a previously dismissed certiorari sued out within the proper time in the same cause, and that the renewal is within six months from the date of the dismissal of the previous certiorari. Unless all of these facts appear in the petition for certiorari, the judge of the superior court has no jurisdiction of the case, and should refuse to sanction the petition; and if such a petition is sanctioned, it should be dismissed when a proper motion therefor is made upon the hearing of the certiorari. Morris v. Battey, 31 Ga. App. 438 (2) (121 S. E. 125) ; Barber v. Rome, 39 Ga. App. 225 (146 S. E. 856) ; Hogan v. State, 127 Ga. 349 (56 S. E. 409).

2. Under the foregoing rulings and the facts ' of this case, the certiorari was properly dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre amd Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.E. 171, 48 Ga. App. 853, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack