Case ID: ga_99/html/0322-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      Atkinson, J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MIZE v. BREWER.
    August 24, 1896.
    Appeal. Before Judge Reese. Elbert superior court. September term, 1895.
    Tbe case of Brewer v. Mize, pending on appeal from tbe county court, being called for trial, counsel for plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the affidavit in forma pauperis had no jurat to it, the affidavit being, in all other respects of proper form and being dated August 15, 1894. On the back of the affidavit was written “Riled this August 15, 1894, P. P. Proffitt, Judge O. C.” The only abjection offered to tire affidavit was that it lacked, the signature of the judge of the county court to the jurat.. In answer to this abjection defendant moved the court to allow him to show by the judge of the county court, who was then present in court, that it was a clerical amission by him that his signature did not appear an the jurat, and moved further to have said judge supply the deficiency m~ sianter. This the court refused to allow and dismissed the appeal.
   Atkinson, J.

An affidavit to appeal in forma pauperis from a judgment rendered by a county court, upon which, affidavit was an entry of filing duly signed by the county judge, and which was in all respects complete except that it lacked the signature of the county judge to the jurat, was amendable by supplying the deficiency; and it was therefore error not to allow the appellant to show by that judge that the failure to sign was a clerical omission, and also error to refuse to allow him to sign the jurat instanter. Judgment reversed.

Ira G. Van Duzer, for plaintiff in error.