Tillman v. State Highway Department

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tillman v. State Highway Department

115 S.E.2d 459, 101 Ga. App. 865, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 1028

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 6, 1960

Docket37833

StatusPublished

This text of 115 S.E.2d 459 (Tillman v. State Highway Department) 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

Tillman v. State Highway Department, 115 S.E.2d 459, 101 Ga. App. 865, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 1028 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

“Where a proceeding in rem is brought to condemn property for a public use under the provisions of Chapter 36-11 of the Code as amended by the act of 1938, tender of the amount awarded by the assessors to the apparent or ostensible owner of such property is not a condition precedent to the condemnor’s right to pay the award into the .registry of the court and enter an appeal to a jury.” State Highway Dept. v. Hendrix, 215 Ga. 821 (113 S. E. 2d 761); [866]*866Tillman v. State Highway Dept., 216 Ga. 70 (114 S. E. 2d 537.)

Decided June 6, 1960 Rehearing denied June 21, 1960. Tillman & Brice, B. Lamar Tillman, for plaintiff in error. Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Paul Miller, E. J. Summerour, Assistant Attomeys-General, W. J. Gibbons, contra.

In this case the motion by the condemnee to dismiss the State Highway Department’s appeal on the sole ground that the amount of the assessor’s award was not first paid or tendered to the condemnee was correctly overruled. The motion to dismiss the appeal did not include the ground that the amount of the award was not properly paid into the registry of the court. The second case cited above is the answer of the Supreme Court to a certified question by this court in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

“Where a proceeding in rem is brought to condemn property for a public use under the provisions of Chapter 36-11 of the Code as amended by the act of 1938, tender of the amount awarded by the assessors to the apparent or ostensible owner of such property is not a condition precedent to the condemnor’s right to pay the award into the .registry of the court and enter an appeal to a jury.” State Highway Dept. v. Hendrix, 215 Ga. 821 (113 S. E. 2d 761); [866]*866Tillman v. State Highway Dept., 216 Ga. 70 (114 S. E. 2d 537.)

Decided June 6, 1960 Rehearing denied June 21, 1960. Tillman & Brice, B. Lamar Tillman, for plaintiff in error. Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Paul Miller, E. J. Summerour, Assistant Attomeys-General, W. J. Gibbons, contra.

In this case the motion by the condemnee to dismiss the State Highway Department’s appeal on the sole ground that the amount of the assessor’s award was not first paid or tendered to the condemnee was correctly overruled. The motion to dismiss the appeal did not include the ground that the amount of the award was not properly paid into the registry of the court. The second case cited above is the answer of the Supreme Court to a certified question by this court in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 S.E.2d 459, 101 Ga. App. 865, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 1028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillman-v-state-highway-department-gactapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack