Youmans v. CONSUMERS FINANCING CORPORATION

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Youmans v. CONSUMERS FINANCING CORPORATION

57 S.E.2d 238, 80 Ga. App. 676, 1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 750

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 6, 1950

Docket32651

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 57 S.E.2d 238 (Youmans v. CONSUMERS FINANCING CORPORATION) 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

Youmans v. CONSUMERS FINANCING CORPORATION, 57 S.E.2d 238, 80 Ga. App. 676, 1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 750 (Ga. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Worrill, J.

To the bill of exceptions in this case is attached a paper setting forth certain objections of the defendant in error to the allegations of fact contained in the bill of exceptions, which in substance amounts to a denial of the truth of the allegations referred to therein. These objections by counsel for the defendant in error are not expressly identified as and made a part of the bill of exceptions. The trial judge’s certificate to the bill of exceptions begins: “I do certify that the foregoing bill of exceptions is true with exceptions noted by deft, in error, and contains all the evidence . . ”, and continues in all other respects in the statutory form. The defendant in error moves in this court to dismiss the writ of error on the ground that the trial judge did not unqualifiedly certify to the truth of the bill of exceptions as required by law. Held: The form of the trial judge’s certificate must be construed as approving the bill of exceptions as true in part and untrue in part. “ ‘If when the bill of exceptions is presented to the trial judge it needs correction or qualification, the proper amendment should be made in the bill of exceptions itself; and where there is an attempt to limit its verity by a recital in the certificate, the proceeding is nugatory and does not confer jurisdiction upon this court.’ Clary v. Nash, 6 Ga. App. 549 (65 S. E. 301). Where, as here, the judge’s certificate to the bill of exceptions verifies it in part only, and shows it to be in part untrue, the certificate is not a lawful one, and the write of error must be dismissed.” Jones v. Pierce, 66 Ga. App. 254 (17 S. E. 2d, 838), and citations. The amendment to the Code, § 6-806, by the act of 1946 (Ga. L. 1946, p. 726) did not change this rule where it affirmatively appears, as it does in this case, that the trial judge’s certificate amounts to a denial of the truth of some part of the bill of exceptions. W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Forbes, 202 Ga. 425 (1) (43 S. E. 2d, 642).

Writ of error dismissed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur. *677 H. Alonzo Woods, for plaintiff in error. Homer S. Durden Jr., contra.

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

Worrill, J.

To the bill of exceptions in this case is attached a paper setting forth certain objections of the defendant in error to the allegations of fact contained in the bill of exceptions, which in substance amounts to a denial of the truth of the allegations referred to therein. These objections by counsel for the defendant in error are not expressly identified as and made a part of the bill of exceptions. The trial judge’s certificate to the bill of exceptions begins: “I do certify that the foregoing bill of exceptions is true with exceptions noted by deft, in error, and contains all the evidence . . ”, and continues in all other respects in the statutory form. The defendant in error moves in this court to dismiss the writ of error on the ground that the trial judge did not unqualifiedly certify to the truth of the bill of exceptions as required by law. Held: The form of the trial judge’s certificate must be construed as approving the bill of exceptions as true in part and untrue in part. “ ‘If when the bill of exceptions is presented to the trial judge it needs correction or qualification, the proper amendment should be made in the bill of exceptions itself; and where there is an attempt to limit its verity by a recital in the certificate, the proceeding is nugatory and does not confer jurisdiction upon this court.’ Clary v. Nash, 6 Ga. App. 549 (65 S. E. 301). Where, as here, the judge’s certificate to the bill of exceptions verifies it in part only, and shows it to be in part untrue, the certificate is not a lawful one, and the write of error must be dismissed.” Jones v. Pierce, 66 Ga. App. 254 (17 S. E. 2d, 838), and citations. The amendment to the Code, § 6-806, by the act of 1946 (Ga. L. 1946, p. 726) did not change this rule where it affirmatively appears, as it does in this case, that the trial judge’s certificate amounts to a denial of the truth of some part of the bill of exceptions. W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Forbes, 202 Ga. 425 (1) (43 S. E. 2d, 642).

Writ of error dismissed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur. *677 H. Alonzo Woods, for plaintiff in error. Homer S. Durden Jr., contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 S.E.2d 238, 80 Ga. App. 676, 1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youmans-v-consumers-financing-corporation-gactapp-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack