Worth v. Borough of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Worth v. Borough of Atlanta

169 S.E. 242, 46 Ga. App. 743, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 224

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 13, 1933

Docket22693

StatusPublished

This text of 169 S.E. 242 (Worth v. Borough of Atlanta) 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

Worth v. Borough of Atlanta, 169 S.E. 242, 46 Ga. App. 743, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 224 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

This ease was presented to the Supreme Court to adjudicate certain constitutional questions. The Supreme Court ruled that it was without jurisdiction to hear and determine such questions, since they were first raised in the petition for certiorari, and the case is transferred to this court for determination (175 Ga. 377). Only the general grounds are urged here. It was contended in the brief of plaintiff in error that the venue and the time were not proved at the trial. A specific assignment or reference to such exception is as necessary in a petition for certiorari as it is in a motion for a new trial. Penal Code (1910), § 1101 (1). The evidence amply supports the verdict.

Judgment affio-med.

Broyles, Q. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guerry, J.

This ease was presented to the Supreme Court to adjudicate certain constitutional questions. The Supreme Court ruled that it was without jurisdiction to hear and determine such questions, since they were first raised in the petition for certiorari, and the case is transferred to this court for determination (175 Ga. 377). Only the general grounds are urged here. It was contended in the brief of plaintiff in error that the venue and the time were not proved at the trial. A specific assignment or reference to such exception is as necessary in a petition for certiorari as it is in a motion for a new trial. Penal Code (1910), § 1101 (1). The evidence amply supports the verdict.

Judgment affio-med.

Broyles, Q. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.E. 242, 46 Ga. App. 743, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worth-v-borough-of-atlanta-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack