Legal Opinion

Smith v. Rosenberg Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided January 14, 1932No. 21546PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.

1. “Upon tlie trial of a certiorari case, it is to the answer of the magistrate, or judge of the lower court, and not to the petition for the writ of certiorari, that the superior court must look, in order to ascertain what occurred upon the trial of the case below. If the answer is not full enough, the plaintiff in certiorari, by pursuing the course provided by law, can have it perfected. If the plaintiff desires to controvert any statement contained in the answer, his remedy is to traverse the truth of the same.” Knowles v. Coachman, 109 Ga. 356, 358 (34 S. E. 607) ; Ethridge v. Taylor, 36…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Knowles v. CoachmanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
  2. Ethridge v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927
  3. Hardy v. HardyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. West v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API