Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Studstill v. State

Studstill v. State

170 S.E. 91, 47 Ga. App. 191, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 337
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 7, 1933
Docket23137
StatusPublished

This text of 170 S.E. 91 (Studstill 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
Studstill v. State, 170 S.E. 91, 47 Ga. App. 191, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 337 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

Guerry, J.

Tlie bill of exceptions in tbis case was unsigned when tendered to the trial judge on March 1st, which was the last day on which it could be tendered. The judge certifies that he did not discover that it was unsigned until March 3d, at which time he allowed counsel to sign it. Held, under the authority of O’Connell v. Friedman, 117 Ga. 948 (43 S. E. 1001), and Bennett v. Bainbridge Farm Co., 173 Ga. 856 (162 S. E. 134), and eit., that no legal bill of exceptions was tendered.

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Related

O'Connell Bros. v. Friedman, Keiler & Co.
43 S.E. 1001 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Bennett v. Bainbridge Farm Co.
162 S.E. 134 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 S.E. 91, 47 Ga. App. 191, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/studstill-v-state-gactapp-1933.