Warnock v. Burch

Supreme Court of Georgia

Warnock v. Burch

183 S.E. 563, 181 Ga. 586, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 389

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1936

DocketNo. 10731

StatusPublished

This text of 183 S.E. 563 (Warnock v. Burch) 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

Warnock v. Burch, 183 S.E. 563, 181 Ga. 586, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 389 (Ga. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

“All bills of exceptions in habeas-corpus cases shall, as regards the practice of the lower court and in the Supreme Court relating to the time and manner of signing, filing, serving, transmitting, and hearing the same, be governed, in all respects where applicable, by the laws in reference to bills of exceptions in cases of injunction.” Code of 1933, § 50-126; Mansfield v. State, 94 Ga. 74 (20 S. E. 249); Richards v. McHan, 139 Ga. 37 (76 S. E. 32). Similar provisions relate to criminal cases. Code of 1933, § 6-904. And in all cases of grant or refusal of injunctions “the bill of exceptions shall be tendered and signed within [587]*58720 clays from the rendition of the decision.” § 6-903. Unless it affirmatively appears that the bill of exceptions is tendered within the time stated, it will be dismissed. Milling v. State, 145 Ga. 37 (88 S. E. 554); Jones v. State, 146 Ga. 8 (90 S. E. 280). In the-instant case it affirmatively appears that the judgment in a habeascorpus proceeding, upon which error was assigned, was rendered on January 11, 1935, and that the bill of exceptions was presented to the judge on February 5, 1935, and certified on the same date, more than twenty days from the date of the decision. In these circumstances the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Atkinson, Justice.

“All bills of exceptions in habeas-corpus cases shall, as regards the practice of the lower court and in the Supreme Court relating to the time and manner of signing, filing, serving, transmitting, and hearing the same, be governed, in all respects where applicable, by the laws in reference to bills of exceptions in cases of injunction.” Code of 1933, § 50-126; Mansfield v. State, 94 Ga. 74 (20 S. E. 249); Richards v. McHan, 139 Ga. 37 (76 S. E. 32). Similar provisions relate to criminal cases. Code of 1933, § 6-904. And in all cases of grant or refusal of injunctions “the bill of exceptions shall be tendered and signed within [587]*58720 clays from the rendition of the decision.” § 6-903. Unless it affirmatively appears that the bill of exceptions is tendered within the time stated, it will be dismissed. Milling v. State, 145 Ga. 37 (88 S. E. 554); Jones v. State, 146 Ga. 8 (90 S. E. 280). In the-instant case it affirmatively appears that the judgment in a habeascorpus proceeding, upon which error was assigned, was rendered on January 11, 1935, and that the bill of exceptions was presented to the judge on February 5, 1935, and certified on the same date, more than twenty days from the date of the decision. In these circumstances the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.E. 563, 181 Ga. 586, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warnock-v-burch-ga-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack