Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

193 Ga. 202

17 S.E.2d 745

Kyle v. Huiet

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided November 13, 1941

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1941-11-13

Relies on Waters v. Wells · Cochran v. Cochran · Lott v. City of Waycross

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1941-11-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably Curtis v. State (1968), Johnson v. State (1973)

29 state decisions

11019411950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

Duckworth, Justice.

¶1 “A paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions, properly certified by the trial judge, but not signed by the plaintiff in error or his counsel, is not a legal bill of exceptions, confers no jurisdiction of the case upon this court, is not amendable to correct the defect, and will be dismissed with or without motion for that purpose. Speer v. Merryman, 56 Ga. 529; Brand v. Garrett, 62 Ga. 165; Wellborn v. Atlanta &c. R. Co., 92 Ga. 577 (17 S. E. 672); Sumner v. Sumner, 116 Ga. 798 (43 S. E. 57); O’Connell v. Friedman, 117 Ga. 949 (43 S. E. 1001); Mitchell v. Yow, 147 Ga. 560 (94 S. E. 1012) ; Lott v. Waycross, 152 Ga. 237 (110 S. E. 217); Smith v. Jones, 155 Ga. 439 (117 S. E. 246).” Bennett v. Bainbridge Farm Co., 173 Ga. 856 (162 S. E. 134). The document in the present record purporting to be a bill of exceptions, and properly certified by the trial judge, is not signed by the plaintiffs in error or their counsel.

¶2 Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.
/193/ga/202 · .json · Public domain