Veal v. Darley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Veal v. Darley

95 S.E. 999, 22 Ga. App. 405, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 368

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1918

Docket9550

StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.E. 999 (Veal v. Darley) 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

Veal v. Darley, 95 S.E. 999, 22 Ga. App. 405, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 368 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C.' J.

An appeal to the superior court from the judgment of a justice’s court was dismissed because the affidavit in forma pauperis, given in lieu of an appeal bond, was defective. Thereafter the appellant [406]*406moved, during the same term of the court, to reinstate his appeal and amend his affidavit, and to the judgment refusing-to reinstate the appeal he excepted. It was not contended' in the motion to reinstate, or in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, that the affidavit was not fatally defective, or that the court originally erred in dismissing the appeal, and it is clear that the court ‘did not err in refusing to grant the motion to reinstate the case.

Decided May 17, 1918.

Appeal; from Laurens superior court—Judge Kent. November 24, 1917.

Fred Kea, Hal B. Wimberly, for plaintiff in'error. Larsen & Crockett, contra.

Judgment' affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C.' J.

An appeal to the superior court from the judgment of a justice’s court was dismissed because the affidavit in forma pauperis, given in lieu of an appeal bond, was defective. Thereafter the appellant [406]*406moved, during the same term of the court, to reinstate his appeal and amend his affidavit, and to the judgment refusing-to reinstate the appeal he excepted. It was not contended' in the motion to reinstate, or in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, that the affidavit was not fatally defective, or that the court originally erred in dismissing the appeal, and it is clear that the court ‘did not err in refusing to grant the motion to reinstate the case.

Decided May 17, 1918.

Appeal; from Laurens superior court—Judge Kent. November 24, 1917.

Fred Kea, Hal B. Wimberly, for plaintiff in'error. Larsen & Crockett, contra.

Judgment' affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 999, 22 Ga. App. 405, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veal-v-darley-gactapp-1918.