Sapp v. Clark
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Stephens, J.
Alter the presentation of a bill of exceptions to the trial judge for certification, the plaintiff in error or his counsel should be diligent in obtaining its certification. Where a bill of exceptions was presented to the trial judge on May 2, 1931, notwithstanding the presentation was made within the time provided by law, yet where it was not certified by the trial' judge until April 7, 1934, over two years and eleven months thereafter, and where it does not appear that the delay in certification was not due to the fault of the plaintiff in error or his counsel, and it does not appear that the plaintiff in error or his counsel showed any diTgence, such as applying for a mandamus to compel a certification of the bill of exceptions or otherwise, the delay in certification is due to the fault of the plaintiff in error or his counsel. Duke v. Kelly, 136 Ga. 832 ( 72 S. E. 250 ). The motion to dismiss the writ of error is sustained.
Writ of error dismissed.
J enkims, P. J, and Sutton, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.