Veal v. Veal
This text of 166 S.E. 460 (Veal v. Veal) 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.
Opinion
“It not affirmatively appearing from the allegations of the petition for certiorari (which was a second application, brought within six months from the dismissal of the first) that the first certiorari was [32]*32not dismissed on the merits” (Sheehan v. City Council of Augusta, 8 Ga. App. 539, 69 S. E. 916); and the defendant, who was sued as administrator, having verified the petition for certiorari as an individual, without reference to his representative capacity, and the pauper’s affidavit, signed in an individual capacity, having provided that he was unable to pay the costs or give security, without reference to the solvency or insolvency of the estate which he represented, the court properly refused to sanction the petition for certiorari. See Barfield v. Hartley, 108 Ga. 435 (33 S. E. 1010); Marlow v. Hughes Lumber Co., 92 Ga. 554 (17 S. E. 922); Hawes v. Bank of Elberton, 124 Ga. 567 (52 S. E. 922); Hobbs v. Hunter, 1 Ga. App. 329 (57 S. E. 922); Paulk v. Hawkins, 106 Ga. 206 (32 S. E. 122).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
166 S.E. 460, 46 Ga. App. 31, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veal-v-veal-gactapp-1932.