Case Name: MEADOR, trustee, for use, etc., v. CALLICOTT et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1907-11-27
Citations: 129 Ga. 631
Docket Number: 
Parties: MEADOR, trustee, for use, etc., v. CALLICOTT et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except AtMnson, J., dissenting.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 631–635

Head Matter:
MEADOR, trustee, for use, etc., v. CALLICOTT et al.
1. Where a bill of exceptions, after the hearing of objections to the same before the judge, was finally agreed upon on April 15, 1907, and was on'that day taken by counsel for plaintiff in error to be copied as corrected, and was not finally presented to the judge for his certificate until May 23, 1907, the delay was unreasonable, and the writ of error must be dismissed. , ’
2. Upon a review of the ease of AtJcins v. Winter, 121 Ga. 75, the decision therein rendered is approved.
Argued November 22,
Decided November 27, 1907.
Motion to dismiss the writ of error.
In his certificate to the bill of exceptions the judge states: “ This bill was tendered to me January 11, 1907. It was delivered to counsel for defendant on same date, to note their exceptions,, if any. It was returned to counsel for plaintiff on Feby. 10th, by counsel for defendant, with some sixty or seventy objections, covering some eight or ten typewritten pages, noted. On April 12th, 14th, and 15th, counsel for both parties appeared and discussed the objections, and the bill of exceptions was agreed upon,' and was taken by counsel for plaintiff in error to be recopied, and the bill of exceptions as recopied was presented to me to-day, May 23rd, 1907, for signature. This is part of my certificate.” In this court all of the parties to the record entered into a written agreement, to the effect that the statement in the certificate that the bill of exceptions was returned by counsel for defendant in error to counsel for plaintiff in error on February 10th is erroneous; that the true date of such return is February 26, 1907. Counsel for defendants in error moved to dismiss the writ of error, on several grounds, among them the following: "5. . . (&) because plaintiff in error did not promptly correct and return said bill of exceptions to the court for its signature, but on the contrary withheld the same for a period of more than sixty days after having notice of the errors and needed corrections therein; which said time constitutes an unreasonable time in law; (c) because it appears that plaintiff in error withheld the said bill of exceptions from February 10th, 1907, until May 23rd, 1907, a period of more than seventy days, before returning the same to the court to be certified, which said time constitutes an unreasonable time in law; (d) that it appears that, after said bill of ex- ccptions had been finally agreed upon as being correct, plaintiff in error withheld the same for a period of more than thirty-eight days before presenting the same to the court for its signature, which said time constitutes an unreasonable time in law; for each and all of which reasons . . the trial judge was without jurisdiction and without authority to sign and certify said bill of exceptions at the time the same purports to have been signed.” It appears that the bill of exceptions covers 171 typewritten pages.
Evins & Spence, for plaintiff.
Moore & Pomeroy, Payne, Jones & Jones, Tye, Peeples, Bryan S Jordan, and E. V. Carter, for defendants.

Opinion:
Fisi-i, C. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
Without considering the other grounds of the motion to dismiss the writ of error, we think, in-view of the previous rulings of this court which are applicable here, there can be no question that the motion must prevail, on the ground that, after the bill of exceptions had been finally agreed upon as correct, counsel for plaintiff in error failed to retender the same to the judge within a reasonable time. It appears, from the certificate of the judge, that the objections to the bill of exceptions, as originally presented, were discussed before him for three dajrs by counsel for both sides; that on April 15, a bill of exceptions was finally agreed on, and that counsel for plaintiff in error took the same to have it copied as corrected and agreed upon, and did not present the bill as thus copied to the judge until May 23, thus withholding the same for thirty-eight days. In Atkins v. Winter, 121 Ga. 75, it was held that thirty-eight days was an unreasonable length of time to allow counsel for plaintiff in error to remove the judge's objections and to present to him a corrected bill of exceptions. It was there said: "Since, in the nature of the case, it ought to require less time to correct than in the first instance to prepare an entire bill of exceptions, it is both liberal and reasonable, by analogy, to fix twenty days for the correction and return of the bill of exceptions, the same being a period deemed sufficient by the law for the preparation of bills of exceptions in injunction cases, which are among the most voluminous provided for by statute." In Allison v. Jowers, 94 Ga. 335, it was said: "The section [Civil Code, §5545] is silent as to the length of time the party to whom it is returned or his attorney will be allowed to remove the judge's objections and tender a corrected bill of ex-, •ceptions; but he certainly should not be allowed for this purpose (in the absence of some good reason for delay) longer than thirty days." And in Parkman v. Dent, 109 Ga. 289, it was said: "If, in any event, counsel tendering a bill of exceptions can ever be allowed any greater length of time for correcting the same than that given by statute for presenting it in the first instance, it should appear that the delay was occasioned by imperative necessity." See also Walker v. Wood, 119 Ga. 624.
In the argument of the motion to dismiss, Atkins v. Winter was brought under review, leave having been granted counsel for plaintiff in error for this purpose. After duly considering the ruling there made, we are thoroughly satisfied of its soundness and approve the same.
Writ of error dismissed.
All the Justices concur, except AtMnson, J., dissenting.