Smith v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. State

129 S.E.2d 580, 107 Ga. App. 243, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 794

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 22, 1963

Docket39844

StatusPublished

This text of 129 S.E.2d 580 (Smith v. State) 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. State, 129 S.E.2d 580, 107 Ga. App. 243, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 794 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Where as here the trial judge’s certificate to the bill of exceptions does not unqualifiedly approve it as being true but undertakes to enumerate the particulars in which he contends it is untrue, such certificate “is absolutely void, and, in legal potency and effect in the creation of a writ of error, amounts to no more than a refusal by the judge to affix his name to the certificate which constitutes a writ of error.” Barker v. Peoples Loan &c. Co., 178 Ga. 464 (2) (173 SE 704). At most it is a certificate approving the bill of exceptions as true in part and untrue in part. See Youmans v. Consumers Financing Corp., 80 Ga. App. 676 (57 SE2d 238); Clyde v. State, 97 Ga. App. 493 (103 SE2d 448). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the writ of error must be granted.

Writ of error dismissed.

Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur. Driving U. I. Hall City Court. Before Judge Blackshear. John N. Crudup, for plaintiff in error. C. E. Smith, Jr., Solicitor, contra.

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

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Where as here the trial judge’s certificate to the bill of exceptions does not unqualifiedly approve it as being true but undertakes to enumerate the particulars in which he contends it is untrue, such certificate “is absolutely void, and, in legal potency and effect in the creation of a writ of error, amounts to no more than a refusal by the judge to affix his name to the certificate which constitutes a writ of error.” Barker v. Peoples Loan &c. Co., 178 Ga. 464 (2) (173 SE 704). At most it is a certificate approving the bill of exceptions as true in part and untrue in part. See Youmans v. Consumers Financing Corp., 80 Ga. App. 676 (57 SE2d 238); Clyde v. State, 97 Ga. App. 493 (103 SE2d 448). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the writ of error must be granted.

Writ of error dismissed.

Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur. Driving U. I. Hall City Court. Before Judge Blackshear. John N. Crudup, for plaintiff in error. C. E. Smith, Jr., Solicitor, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.E.2d 580, 107 Ga. App. 243, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-gactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack