Case Name: GEORGE W. DYE, plaintiff in error, v. WM. H. MATTOX, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1870-06
Citations: 41 Ga. 425
Docket Number: 
Parties: *GEORGE W. DYE, plaintiff in error, v. WM. H. MATTOX, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 425–426

Head Matter:
*GEORGE W. DYE, plaintiff in error, v. WM. H. MATTOX, defendant in error.
(Atlanta,
June Term, 1870.)
FAILURE TO IDENTIFY RECORD OR BILL OF EXCEPTIONS—DISMISSAL OF WRIT OF ERROR.—If the certificate of the Clerk below fails to identify what purports to be the record applicable to the bill of exceptions, or the bill of exceptions, the writ of error will be dismissed. (R.)
Practice. Supreme Court. From Elbert.
The bill of exceptions averred that George W. Dye brought “complaint on note” against William H. Mattox, “on the common law side of said Court,” and that Dye’s counsel demurred to the plea, upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of the 17th section of the 5th Article of the Constitution of Georgia, of 1868, which demurrer was overruled. That is assigned as error.
On it is an entry of filing by the Clerk below, on the 13th of October, 1869, but no certificate. What .purports to be the record, came here in four leaves of paper, not attached to the bill of exceptions or to each other. One purports to be a copy of an action by said Dye against said Mattox, brought by Toombs & DuBose, attorneys, in the usual form of “complaint on a note,” with an entry of service as usual. Another leaf contains process in said last named paper in the usual form. Another contains a plea by Mattox that the note sued on was given for slaves, a demurrer to this plea, and a judgment overruling the demurrer.
The other is a certificate that “the following' pages hereunto annexed” are a true and complete copy, etc., of the proceeding 'fin the-'cause in equity in which George W. Dye is complainant and William H. Mattox is defendant;” that “the bill of exceptions, hereto annexed,” is the original, etc., as usual.
Defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss it, because the certificate was by its face not intended for the record of this case, on this bill of exceptions. The cause was dismissed.
R. Toombs, for plaintiff in error.
Hester & Lumpkin, for defendant.

Opinion:
McCAY, J.,
dissented, believing that the identity was sufficiently plain.