Whitehead v. State

144 S.E. 135, 38 Ga. App. 437, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 275
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 31, 1928·No. 19038·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Where two defendants, -after being separately indicted, are by consent tried together, and separate verdicts of guilty arc returned, and separate motions for new trials are filed, and the court passes separate written orders overruling the motions, the defendants can not bring their cases to this court in one bill of exceptions. Washington v. State, 32 Ga. App. 72 (122 S. E. 629); Wall v. Mann, 163 Ga. 42 (135 S. E. 407). “For want of jurisdiction in such a case, this court can not entertain a motion made by one of the plaintiffs in error that his name be stricken from the bill of exceptions and that the case proceed in the name of the other plaintiff in error.” Center v. Fickett Paper Co., 117 Ga. 222 (2) (43 S. E. 498); Wall v. Mann, supra.

Writ of error dismissed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., eoneur.

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

Whitehead v. State, 144 S.E. 135, 38 Ga. App. 437, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 275 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

144 S.E. 135 (Whitehead v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Center v. Fickett Paper Co.
43 S.E. 498 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Wall v. Mann
135 S.E. 407 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Washington v. State
122 S.E. 629 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)