Smith v. Holcomb

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. Holcomb

166 S.E. 218, 45 Ga. App. 834, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 727

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 14, 1932

Docket22166

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 166 S.E. 218 (Smith v. Holcomb) 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. Holcomb, 166 S.E. 218, 45 Ga. App. 834, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 727 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Sutton, J.

1. Under the rulings of the Supreme Court in Smith v. Board of Trustees, 173 Ga. 437 (160 S. E. 395), and Holcomb v. Smith, 175 Ga. 566 (165 S. E. 581), the acts of the board of trustees for relief and pension fund of the members of the Atlanta police department (Ga. L. 1925, p. 234) are ministerial in character, the members thereof are vested with a discretion in passing upon the questions given to them by statute to determine, and their decision is final as to who are entitled to pensions under the act.

2. It follows that the writ of certiorari will not lie to review a finding of the board, and that the superior-court judge did not err in dismissing, on motion, the certiorari in the instant ease.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. T. J. Lewis, King & Partridge, for plaintiff in error. J. L. Mayson, O. S. Winn, J. G. Savage, contra.

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

Sutton, J.

1. Under the rulings of the Supreme Court in Smith v. Board of Trustees, 173 Ga. 437 (160 S. E. 395), and Holcomb v. Smith, 175 Ga. 566 (165 S. E. 581), the acts of the board of trustees for relief and pension fund of the members of the Atlanta police department (Ga. L. 1925, p. 234) are ministerial in character, the members thereof are vested with a discretion in passing upon the questions given to them by statute to determine, and their decision is final as to who are entitled to pensions under the act.

2. It follows that the writ of certiorari will not lie to review a finding of the board, and that the superior-court judge did not err in dismissing, on motion, the certiorari in the instant ease.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. T. J. Lewis, King & Partridge, for plaintiff in error. J. L. Mayson, O. S. Winn, J. G. Savage, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 218, 45 Ga. App. 834, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-holcomb-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack