Case ID: ga_93/html/0254-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Conwell v. McWhorter, judge.
    Where a case was tried in the superior court, a motion for a new trial filed, and an order passed setting a day for hearing the motion in vacation and granting the movant until the hearing to prepare and present for approval a brief of the evidence, the order further providing that if the motion was not heard on the day appointed it might be heard thereafter at a time to be designated by the judge, after five days notice to the parties; and before the arrival of the day first appointed for hearing the motion, the judge before whom the case was tried and before whom the motion was returnable, and who was not the judge of the circuit including the county in which the case was tried, had resigned his office, and therefore could take no further official action, this court will not grant a mandamus nisi requiring the judge of the circuit to show cause why he should not approve a brief of evidence tendered by counsel for movant. Under the ruling in Central Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia v. Miller, judge, 91 Ga. 83, 16 S. E. Rep. 256, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to grant or issue a writ of mandamus to compel a judge of the superior court to approve a brief of evidence presented to him in connection with a motion for a new trial pending in that court. If, in acting upon, or declining to act upon, the motion or brief of evidence, any error subject to correction by this court should be committed, it maybe corrected by writ of error.
    February 1, 1894.
    A. G-. McCurry, for movant.
   Leave to file petition for mandamus denied.