Teem v. Cox

96 S.E. 131, 148 Ga. 175, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 246
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 14, 1918
DocketNo. 548
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 96 S.E. 131 (Teem v. Cox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Teem v. Cox, 96 S.E. 131, 148 Ga. 175, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 246 (Ga. 1918).

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

Citizens and taxpayers have not such interest as will authorize them to maintain a petition for the writ of prohibition to prevent the jury commissioners of the county from revising jury-lists and making up jury-boxes as provided in the Penal Code, § 816 et seq., and § 820 et seq. State of Washington ex rel. Hanna v. Main, 62 Wash. 242 (113 Pac. 632, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 255); Mealing v. Augusta, Dudley, 221; 32 Cyc. 622.

(a) Litigants have a legal remedy by challenge to the array of jurors on the trial of the case. Carter v. State, 143 Ga. 632 (2c), 639 (85 S. E. 884).

(i) Applying the foregoing to the allegations of the petition, there was no error in denying the writ of prohibition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Derryberry v. Higdon
157 S.E.2d 559 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Richter v. Jordan
192 S.E. 715 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Smith v. Milton
98 S.E. 607 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 S.E. 131, 148 Ga. 175, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teem-v-cox-ga-1918.