White v. Hutcheson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

White v. Hutcheson

154 S.E. 157, 41 Ga. App. 602, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 1009

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 13, 1930

Docket20650

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 S.E. 157 (White v. Hutcheson) 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

White v. Hutcheson, 154 S.E. 157, 41 Ga. App. 602, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 1009 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a mandamus proceeding seeking to compel a trial judge to certify a bill of exceptions complaining of his refusal to vacate his judgment making the previous judgment of this court the judgment of the court below, in order to permit the defendants to amend their answer. The previous judgment of this court operated to affirm the previous judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiff: in that court, on condition that the plaintiff write off from its judgment the item for attorney’s fees at the time the judgment of this court was made the judgment of the court below. The only ground of the motion to vacate was that the judgment on the remittitur was entered without the ease being docketed and called, and without notice to the defendants. This being an application for mandamus to compel the judge to sign a second bill of exceptions, the court must look into the merits of the case. DuPre v. Humphries, 153 Ga. 884 (113 S. E. 204); Landers v. Cobb, 150 Ga. 80 (102 S. E. 428). The ground set forth in the motion to vacate the judgment being without merit, a mandamus must be refused, even though in their assignments of error in the tendered bill of exceptions the defendants now seek to attack the judgment refusing to vacate the judgment on the remittitur on various additional grounds, since the trial court was not required to vacate the judgment upon other grounds than the one stated in the motion.

Mandamus nisi refused.

Jenldns, P. J., and Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a mandamus proceeding seeking to compel a trial judge to certify a bill of exceptions complaining of his refusal to vacate his judgment making the previous judgment of this court the judgment of the court below, in order to permit the defendants to amend their answer. The previous judgment of this court operated to affirm the previous judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiff: in that court, on condition that the plaintiff write off from its judgment the item for attorney’s fees at the time the judgment of this court was made the judgment of the court below. The only ground of the motion to vacate was that the judgment on the remittitur was entered without the ease being docketed and called, and without notice to the defendants. This being an application for mandamus to compel the judge to sign a second bill of exceptions, the court must look into the merits of the case. DuPre v. Humphries, 153 Ga. 884 (113 S. E. 204); Landers v. Cobb, 150 Ga. 80 (102 S. E. 428). The ground set forth in the motion to vacate the judgment being without merit, a mandamus must be refused, even though in their assignments of error in the tendered bill of exceptions the defendants now seek to attack the judgment refusing to vacate the judgment on the remittitur on various additional grounds, since the trial court was not required to vacate the judgment upon other grounds than the one stated in the motion.

Mandamus nisi refused.

Jenldns, P. J., and Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 S.E. 157, 41 Ga. App. 602, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 1009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-hutcheson-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack