Whitton v. Entrekin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Whitton v. Entrekin

76 S.E. 1077, 12 Ga. App. 186, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 487

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 30, 1913

Docket4170

StatusPublished

This text of 76 S.E. 1077 (Whitton v. Entrekin) 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

Whitton v. Entrekin, 76 S.E. 1077, 12 Ga. App. 186, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 487 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. It is only when the judge of the superior court refuses to sanction a petition for certiorari that the petition is required to be set out in the bill of exceptions. After the petition has been sanctioned, and there has been an adjudication in the superior court, ’it. may be transmitted, by reference thereto, as a part of the record, and need not be identified by the presiding judge. The motion to dismiss the writ of error is therefore overruled.

2. The plaintiff, upon cross-examination, having testified that he did not know anything as to the correctness of any of the items of the account sued on, further than that they appeared upon his books, from whiclj. the account had been taken or copied, the correctness of the whole account as stated was not duly proved; and though the finding of the .jury, as to the item which was proved, was authorized, the certiorari should have been sustained and a new'trial granted. Linder v. Renfroe, 1 Ga. App. 58 (57 S. E. 975). Judgment reversed.

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

Russell, J.

1. It is only when the judge of the superior court refuses to sanction a petition for certiorari that the petition is required to be set out in the bill of exceptions. After the petition has been sanctioned, and there has been an adjudication in the superior court, ’it. may be transmitted, by reference thereto, as a part of the record, and need not be identified by the presiding judge. The motion to dismiss the writ of error is therefore overruled.

2. The plaintiff, upon cross-examination, having testified that he did not know anything as to the correctness of any of the items of the account sued on, further than that they appeared upon his books, from whiclj. the account had been taken or copied, the correctness of the whole account as stated was not duly proved; and though the finding of the .jury, as to the item which was proved, was authorized, the certiorari should have been sustained and a new'trial granted. Linder v. Renfroe, 1 Ga. App. 58 (57 S. E. 975). Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 1077, 12 Ga. App. 186, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitton-v-entrekin-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack