Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

129 Ga. 255

Sistrunk v. Pendleton

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided August 13, 1907

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1907-08-13

Relies on Orr v. Webb · Farr v. Farr

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1907-08-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1965

6 state decisions

201907191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Beck, J.

¶11. In passing upon an application for mandamus to compel a judge to certify a bill of exceptions which is presented in proper form, this court will not look into the merits of any assignment of error therein, made; but mandamus will not lie to compel the trial judge to sign and certify a bill which is so defective in form as to necessitate a dismissal of the writ of error in case it should be certified and brought to this court.

¶22. It appearing that persons who are essential parties to a bill of exceptions sued out in this case are neither named nor designated as such in the bill presented, and that the only attenjpt to do so is by using with reference to them the words “et al,” and “tenants,” following .the name of one who is a proper defendant in error, such bill of exceptions is fatally defective for want of necessary parties, Farr v. Farr, 113 Ga. 577; Orr v. Webb, 112 Ga. 806.

¶3Mandamus nisi denied.

All ihe Justices concur.
/129/ga/255 · .json · Public domain