Stanford v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stanford v. State

140 S.E. 426, 37 Ga. App. 332, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 654

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 15, 1927

Docket18390

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 S.E. 426 (Stanford 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

Stanford v. State, 140 S.E. 426, 37 Ga. App. 332, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 654 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted on November 9, 1926; his motion for a new trial -was overruled on November 26, 1926; the bill of exceptions was certified by the trial judge on December 14, 1926, and on the same date was filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court; the clerk of the trial court certified to the correctness of the bill of exceptions on July 28, 1927, and it was filed in the office of the clerk of the Court of Appeals on July 30, 1927. The case is presented to this court almost a year after the trial. The record fails also to show any service of the bill of exceptions upon counsel for the State, or any acknowledgment or waiver of service. The writ of error must be dismissed. See Earnhart v. Atlanta & West Point R. Co., 133 Ga. 59 (65 S. E. 138); Cox v. Gulf Guano Co., 21 Ga. App. 421 (94 S. E. 582), and cit.

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. I. J. Bussell, Homer Causey, for plaintiff in error. C. A. Williams, solicitor, 'A. B. Spence, contra.

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

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted on November 9, 1926; his motion for a new trial -was overruled on November 26, 1926; the bill of exceptions was certified by the trial judge on December 14, 1926, and on the same date was filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court; the clerk of the trial court certified to the correctness of the bill of exceptions on July 28, 1927, and it was filed in the office of the clerk of the Court of Appeals on July 30, 1927. The case is presented to this court almost a year after the trial. The record fails also to show any service of the bill of exceptions upon counsel for the State, or any acknowledgment or waiver of service. The writ of error must be dismissed. See Earnhart v. Atlanta & West Point R. Co., 133 Ga. 59 (65 S. E. 138); Cox v. Gulf Guano Co., 21 Ga. App. 421 (94 S. E. 582), and cit.

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. I. J. Bussell, Homer Causey, for plaintiff in error. C. A. Williams, solicitor, 'A. B. Spence, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E. 426, 37 Ga. App. 332, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanford-v-state-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack