Case Name: Williams v. Shuler
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1894-07-30
Citations: 94 Ga. 660
Docket Number: 
Parties: Williams v. Shuler.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
Williams v. Shuler.
1. In procuring a second writ of certiorari after a first writ in the same case has been dismissed, the second proceeding being a renewal of the first, as provided for in the code, $2932, it is not necessary to produce to the clerk, or file, a new certificate as to the payment of costs. The certificate already filed with the first petition being still on file, may be treated by the clerk as sufficient evidence on which to base the second writ, inasmuch as the second proceeding would relate alone to the state of facts, relatively to the justice’s court, which existed when the first proceeding was instituted.
2. A certificate by the proper officer, stating the case and certifying that “all the costs have been paid,” fairly construed, means that all costs which may have accrued on the trial below have been paid. Judgment affirmed.
July 30, 1894.
Certiorari. Before Judge Milner. Catoosa superior court. August term, 1898.

Opinion:
Defendant moved to dismiss the certiorari, on the ground that no certificate of the presiding magistrate that all costs had been paid which had accrued on the trial below, was filed with the petition and bond. Plain tiff offered in evidence the certificate purporting to have been filed with the first petition for certiorari in this case, which petition was dismissed at the February term, 1893. Said certificate was dated April 19, 1892, was signed by the justice who tried the case, and stated the following: "Received of James Shuler $10.90 dollars in full payment of cost in case of James Shuler vs. J. C. Williams, before jury in the 1109th district G. M., Catoosa county; and I certify that all the costs have been paid." It was objected that this was not such certificate as required by law, and not filed with the other papers. The objection and the motion to dismiss were overruled, and the certiorari was sustained. Defendant excepted.
W. E. Mann, for plaintiff' in error.
R. J. & J. McCamy, contra.