Meltzer v. C. Buck LeCraw & Co.
| Decision Date | 23 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 25005,25005 |
| Citation | 166 S.E.2d 88,225 Ga. 91 |
| Parties | Yvette MELTZER et al. v. C. BUCK LeCRAW & COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Peter E. Rindskopf, Howard Moore, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants.
Warren Rosser, Lucian Lamar Sneed, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Alfred L. Evans, Jr., A. Joseph Nardone, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This appeal is from the denial of a motion for new trial in a dispossessory warrant proceeding wherein the tenants were dispossessed and ordered to pay double rent under Code Ann. § 61-305. Held:
1. The appellants enumerate as error in this court the order of the trial judge dated September 13, 1968, overruling their motion for new trial on the ground that 'there was no preponderance of the evidence in favor of the appellee.' The transcript of evidence was filed in this court on January 13, 1968. There is no order in the record showing that an extension of time for the filing of the transcript of evidence was made to or granted by the trial judge. Fahrig v. Garrett, 224 Ga. 817, 165 S.E.2d 126; Hardy v. D. G. Machinery & Gage Co., 224 Ga. 818, 165 S.E.2d 127. Since the transcript of evidence is not properly before this court, this enumeration of error does not raise a question which can be considered here.
2. Enumeration of error 2 complains that the trial court erred in overruling appellants' motion to be relieved from a void money judgment because appellee had waived his right thereto.
The record in this case shows that the dispossessory warrant was filed on June 5, 1968, and the tenants remained in possession of the property. On July 15, 1968, the landlord waived the posting of bond after being enjoined by the U.S. district court from insisting upon this provision of Georgia law.
The tenants contend that the money judgment is void because the landlord had waived his right to double rent when he waived the statutory bond requirement. There is no merit in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seals v. State
...27 (2) (a), 823 S.E.2d 258 (2019). And appeals are to be decided based only on the record on appeal. See Meltzer v. C. Buck LeCraw & Co. , 225 Ga. 91, 92 (1), 166 S.E.2d 88 (1969). At the time the notice of appeal was filed, and even at the time that the Court of Appeals dismissed the case ......
-
Tingle v. Arnold, Cate and Allen
...See Greene v. McIntyre, 119 Ga.App. 296, 167 S.E.2d 203; Palmer v. Stevens, 115 Ga.App. 398(8), 154 S.E.2d 803; Meltzer v. C. Buck LeCraw & Co., 225 Ga. 91(1), 166 S.E.2d 88.' Jenkins v. Board of zoning &c. of Columbus, 122 Ga.App. 412(2), 177 S.E.2d 204. See also Hunt v. Denby, 128 Ga.App.......
-
Baxter v. Long
...duty to make a timely application as the statute requires, and failure to do that is delay attributable to them. Meltzer v. C. Buck LeCraw & Co., 225 Ga. 91(1), 166 S.E.2d 88. Under applicable provisions of the statute, as construed by the Supreme Court, it is inescapable that the court err......
-
Henson v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co.
...See Greene v. McIntyre, 119 Ga.App. 296, 167 S.E.2d 203; Palmer v. Stevens, 115 Ga.App. 398(8), 154 S.E.2d 803; Meltzer v. C. Buck LeCraw & Co., 225 Ga. 91(1), 166 S.E.2d 88." Jenkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 122 Ga.App. 412(2), 177 S.E.2d 204 (1970). Accordingly, we will limit our consi......