Smith v. State

80 S.E.2d 70, 89 Ga. App. 546, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 507
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 84 Ga. App. 79
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 20, 1954·No. 34978·Published

Opinion

Carlisle, J.

Where, on the date set for the hearing on a motion for new trial in a criminal case, the solicitor makes a motion that the motion for new trial be dismissed on the grounds that he has not been served with the rule nisi contained therein, and has not waived or acknowledged service of the same, and such service, waiver, or acknowledgment does not appear in the record, and the allegations of the solicitor’s motion to dismiss are not disputed by counsel for the defendant, the trial court did not err in dismissing the motion for new trial. Smedley v. Williams, 112 Ga. 114 (37 S. E. 111); McMullen v. Citizens Bank, 123 Ga. 400 (51 S. E. 342); Tyler v. Arnett, 13 Ga. App. 595 (79 S. E. 482).

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Smith v. State, 80 S.E.2d 70, 89 Ga. App. 546, 1954 Ga. App. LEXIS 507 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954).

80 S.E.2d 70 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smedley v. Williams
37 S.E. 111 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
McMullen v. Bank
51 S.E. 342 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Tyler & Tomlinson v. Arnett
79 S.E. 482 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)