Legal Opinion

Elrod v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 12, 1922No. 14009PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtBloodworth, J.

The bill of exceptions in this case is not signed by plaintiff in error or his counsel. Counsel for plaintiff in error moved the court to allow them to amend the bill of exceptions by signing their names thereto, it appearing that counsel for the State agreed that such amendment be allowed. In Lott v. City of Waycross, 152 Ga. 237 (110 S. E. 217), the Supreme Court held: “A paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions, properly certified by the trial judge, but not signed by the plaintiff in error or his counsel, is not a legal bill of exceptions, and cannot be amended in the Supreme Court by…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lott v. City of WaycrossSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Henderson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API