TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Woodall v. Harris

Woodall v. Harris, governor

Woodall v. Harris, 95 S.E. 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 14, 1918
Docket
No. 9369
Judges
Broyles
Citations
95 S.E. 37722 Ga. App. 691918 Ga. App. LEXIS 149
Summary
Forfeiture of recognizance; from Pike superior court—Judge Searcy. October 12, 1917.

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

Opinion of the Court — Broyles

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

Broyles, P. J.

This was a rule nisi for the forfeiture of a bond given in a criminal case. The only error assigned in the bill of exceptions is upon the judgment of the court sustaining a demurrer filed - to the answer of the sureties upon the bond. It does not appear, either from the bill of exceptions or the record, that any final judgment was ever rendered. The bill of exceptions therefore can not be maintained. Byrd v. Brown, 17 Ga. App. 422 ( 87 S. E. 607 ); Vaughn V. Milner, 121 Ga. 436 ( 49 S. E. 287 ) ; United Glass Go. v. McConnell, 110 Ga. 616 ( 36 S. E. 58 ); Harrell v. Tift, 70 Ga. 730 ; Newberry v. Tenant, 121 Ga. 561 ( 49 S. E. 621 ); Hendricks v. Reid, 125 Ga. 775 ( 54 S. E. 747 ); Piedmont Co. v. Kelley, 125 Ga. 759 ( 54 S. E. 748 ); Simmons v. Scarborough, 129 Ga. 125 ( 58 S. E. 1037 ); Lyndon v. Georgia Ry. &c. Co., 129 Ga. 353 ( 58 S. E. 1047 ) ; Mertins v. Pritchard, 135 Ga. 643 ( 70 S. E. 328 ). The ruling in Haskins v. Bank, 100 Ga. 216 ( 27 S. E. 985 ), cited by plaintiff in error, that “it is not essential to the legal completeness of a bill of exceptions,' sued out in due time and assigning error upon an order striking a plea, that it should contain an exception to the final judgment in the plaintiff’s favor,” is contrary to the earlier adjudication in Harrell v. Tift, supra, and was practically overruled in Kibben v. Coastwise Dredging Co., 120 Ga. 899 ( 48 S. E. 330 ), and in Montgomery v. Reynolds, 124 Ga. 1053 ( 53 S. E. 512 ). Moreover, in the Haskins case it appeared that a final judgment therein had been rendered.

Writ of error dismissed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1918: 11921: 119182026peak 1918 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kennedy & Co. v. Savannah Buggy Co.97 S.E. 196 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918)
  2. Oliver v. Gordy108 S.E. 250 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921)

Most recent

  1. Oliver v. Gordy108 S.E. 250 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921)
  2. Kennedy & Co. v. Savannah Buggy Co.97 S.E. 196 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918)

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 13

DepthCaseCited by
Haskins v. Bank of the State, 27 S.E. 985 (Ga. 1897) 14
Lyndon v. Ga. Ry. & Elec. Co., 58 S.E. 1047 (Ga. 1907) 121
Newberry v. Tenant, 49 S.E. 621 (Ga. 1904) 27
Kibben v. Coastwise Dredging Co., 48 S.E. 330 (Ga. 1904) 19
United Glass Co. v. McConnell, 36 S.E. 58 (Ga. 1900) 17
Harrell v. Tift, 70 Ga. 730 (1883) 17
Mertins v. Pritchard, 70 S.E. 328 (Ga. 1911) 12
Montgomery v. Reynolds, 53 S.E. 512 (Ga. 1906) 11
Hendricks v. Reid, 54 S.E. 747 (Ga. 1906) 5
Piedmont Co. v. Kelley, 54 S.E. 748 (Ga. 1906) 3
Simmons v. Scarborough, 58 S.E. 1037 (Ga. 1907) 3
Vaughn v. Milner, 49 S.E. 287 (Ga. 1904) 2
Byrd v. Brown, 87 S.E. 607 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916) 1

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