TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Justices of the Inferior Court v. Barrington

Justices of the Inferior Court of Putnam County, for the use, &c. in error v. John Barrington and others

Justices of the Inferior Court v. Barrington, 6 Ga. 578 (1849)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1849
Docket
No. 80
Judges
Nisbet
Citations
6 Ga. 578
Headnotes
[1.] The fact must appear affirmatively, that the bill of exceptions was tendered and signed within the time prescribed by the Statute.
Summary
In this cause a motion was made to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that it did not appear that the bill of exceptions was signed and certified within thirty days from the adjournment of the Court. The bill of exceptions specified that the cause was tried at February Term, Baldwin Superior Court, which sits on the 4th Monday in said month. The certificate of the Judge bore date 29th March, 1849.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Nisbet

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court.

Nisbet, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] By the old law organizing this Court, it was necessary that the plaintiff in error should tender his bill of exceptions, and that the presiding Judge should sign it, within four days after the trial of the cause. 1 Kelly, 6 . By the Act of 1847, the Legislature has altered this provision of the first law, and now parties plaintiffs in error may draw up and submit for the signature of the presiding Judge, their bills of exceptions, within thirty days after the close of the term in which the cause was heard. The bill must now be certified and signed within thirty days from the adjournment of the term. A bill not signed within that time, is not, by the law of the State, cognizable by this Court; and the bill, or the record, or both, must show that it is signed within that time. We cannot look out of the record for any thing. It must appear to us affirmatively, and that by. the papers regularly brought here, that the law has been complied with. The date of the signature of the Judge in this case we have, but the time of the adjournment of the term at which the cause was tried no where appears. However painful the duty, we have no alternative but to dismiss the cause. A convenient practice would be for the Clerk to certify the day of adjournment with the record. If, however, it appears from the bill or the record, when the term closed, it will be sufficient. See Act of 1847, Pamphlet, p. 82.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1901: 11909: 11935: 119012026peak 1901 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Evans v. State38 S.E. 78 (Ga. 1901)
  2. Coker v. Life & Casualty Insurance179 S.E. 626 (Ga. 1935)
  3. Scott & Woodruff v. Hughes66 S.E. 737 (W. Va. 1909)

Most recent

  1. Coker v. Life & Casualty Insurance179 S.E. 626 (Ga. 1935)
  2. Scott & Woodruff v. Hughes66 S.E. 737 (W. Va. 1909)
  3. Evans v. State38 S.E. 78 (Ga. 1901)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list