Thompson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thompson v. State

112 S.E.2d 702, 101 Ga. App. 51, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 784

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 19, 1960

Docket38110

StatusPublished

This text of 112 S.E.2d 702 (Thompson 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

Thompson v. State, 112 S.E.2d 702, 101 Ga. App. 51, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 784 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Carlisle, Judge.

Service of the notice of intention to present the bill of exceptions and acknowledgement of the service of such a notice under the provisions of Code (Ann.) § 6-908.1 does not constitute a compliance with the provisions of Code (Ann.) § 6-911 providing for service of a copy of the bill of exceptions on the defendant in error or his counsel after its certification by the trial judge. Salvation Army v. Eleventh Hour Service, 77 Ga. App. 196 (4) (47 S. E. 2d 893); Harrison v. Segars, 79 Ga. App. 117 (2) (53 S. E. 2d 126). Without such latter service or an acknowledgement or a waiver thereof by the defendant in error or his counsel, this court is without jurisdiction of the case. Strickland Motors, Inc. v. Hudson, 84 Ga. App. 727 (67 S. E. 2d 253). Accordingly, where counsel for the plaintiff in error presented to the solicitor-general a notice that the bill of exceptions would be tendered or presented to the judge of the superior court for approval at 2 p.m. on November 16, 1959, and where the solicitor signed an acknowledgment that “Due and legal service of the above and foregoing notice is hereby acknowledged, and all other and further notice is hereby waived” (italics ours); on November 16, 1959, such notice and acknowledgment thereof was not a compliance with, or a waiver of, the requirements of Code (Ann.) § 6-911 providing for service of the bill of exceptions after its certification by the trial judge. Even if material, extraneous proof or statements by counsel for the plaintiff in error in their brief that such acknowledgement was signed after the certification of the bill of exceptions cannot be received by this court. Ginn v. Ginn, 202 Ga. 292 (2) (42 S. E. 2d 923).

Writ of error dismissed.

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

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

Carlisle, Judge.

Service of the notice of intention to present the bill of exceptions and acknowledgement of the service of such a notice under the provisions of Code (Ann.) § 6-908.1 does not constitute a compliance with the provisions of Code (Ann.) § 6-911 providing for service of a copy of the bill of exceptions on the defendant in error or his counsel after its certification by the trial judge. Salvation Army v. Eleventh Hour Service, 77 Ga. App. 196 (4) (47 S. E. 2d 893); Harrison v. Segars, 79 Ga. App. 117 (2) (53 S. E. 2d 126). Without such latter service or an acknowledgement or a waiver thereof by the defendant in error or his counsel, this court is without jurisdiction of the case. Strickland Motors, Inc. v. Hudson, 84 Ga. App. 727 (67 S. E. 2d 253). Accordingly, where counsel for the plaintiff in error presented to the solicitor-general a notice that the bill of exceptions would be tendered or presented to the judge of the superior court for approval at 2 p.m. on November 16, 1959, and where the solicitor signed an acknowledgment that “Due and legal service of the above and foregoing notice is hereby acknowledged, and all other and further notice is hereby waived” (italics ours); on November 16, 1959, such notice and acknowledgment thereof was not a compliance with, or a waiver of, the requirements of Code (Ann.) § 6-911 providing for service of the bill of exceptions after its certification by the trial judge. Even if material, extraneous proof or statements by counsel for the plaintiff in error in their brief that such acknowledgement was signed after the certification of the bill of exceptions cannot be received by this court. Ginn v. Ginn, 202 Ga. 292 (2) (42 S. E. 2d 923).

Writ of error dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E.2d 702, 101 Ga. App. 51, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-gactapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack