Court Opinion

ID: 9602437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:54:58.1495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:03.501977
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In a well reasoned motion for a rehearing counsel for the defendants in error vigorously contend that this court has committed grievous error in refusing to' dismiss the wnt of error. The persuasiveness and logic of the motion was such that we were impelled to reconsider our decision in the matter and have, therefore, given painstaking and careful attention to the argument of movant, but, at last, have concluded that we were right in refusing to dismiss the writ of error. In reaching this conclusion a further reason appears. Under a requirement of Code Ann. § 6-806, extant at the time this case was brought to this court on writ of error, it was the duty of the judge to whom the bill of exceptions was presented to see that his certificate was in legal form before signing the same. While we do not find any decision under this provision or under old Code Ann. § 6-808, which contained the same directive, clearly defining what is meant by the phrase “legal form,” it has been held that a dismissal of the writ of error on account of the form of the certificate will not be had for any cause other than for a failure of the judge to certify the bill of exceptions as true. Bailey &c. Buggy Co. v. Guthrie, 1 Ga. App. 350 (1) (58 SE 103).
In this case the judge's certificate directed the clerk of the superior court to make out a transcript of the record and certify *773the same and cause it to be transmitted to this court. Whether or not this directive contained in the certificate is a matter of form is unnecessary for us to decide, but it -will be presumed that the judge of the trial court knowingly and consciously affixed his signature to the certificate containing this directive. Under these circumstances, it would seem that counsel for the plaintiff in error properly filed the certified bill of exceptions with the clerk of the court to whom the directive was issued, and for this court to now dismiss the writ of error because this was done would be very much akin to, if not in fact, dismissing it because of something done or directed to be done by the trial judge. Dismissals for such technical reasons were not favored under the procedure applicable to this case. Code § 6-1307. For this additional reason, as well as for the reasons outlined in the original opinion, we adhere to our original determination not to dismiss the writ of error, and we shall, accordingly, let the decision on the merits stand.

Rehearing denied.