Case ID: ga_66/html/0205-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Jackson, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Atlanta and Charlotte Air-Line Railway Company vs. Smith, administratrix.
    1. Where the exception is to the refusal of the court to grant a new trial, the brief of evidence may be brought up to this court as part of the record; but it must be referred to in the bill of exceptions, or the writ of error will be dismissed.
    2. Where the date of the clerk’s certificate to the bill of exceptions is prior to the date of the judge’s signature, it will be dismissed.
    Practice in the Supreme Court. At September Term, 1880.
    To the report contained in the decision it is only necessary to add, that the signature of the judge to the bill of exceptions bears date June io, 1880, while the clerk’s certificate is dated June 1, 1880.
    H. K. McCay, for plaintiff in error.
    Hopkins & Glenn, for defendant.
   Jackson, Chief Justice.

In the above stated case no testimony was contained in the bill of exceptions, and no reference whatever made to any brief thereof in the record — the cause being brought up on the refusal of the court to grant a new trial — whereupon it was adjudged, on the ruling in 61 Ga., 492, and the case of Myers vs. Way & Olmstead on the minutes of this court, at the February term, 1879, vol. 12, page 448, that the writ of error be dismissed for non-compliance with section 4253 of the Code.

It also appears that the bill of exceptions is not properly certified by the clerk below.

Writ of error dismissed. .