Bank of Ringgold v. Poarch

• Decision Date: 10 April 1923
• Docket Number: 14114.
• Citation: 117 S.E. 114,30 Ga.App. 102
• Parties: BANK OF RINGGOLD v. POARCH ET AL.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

117 S.E. 114

30 Ga.App. 102

BANK OF RINGGOLD v. POARCH ET AL.

No. 14114.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

April 10, 1923

Syllabus by the Court.

Under sections 6139, 6224, and 6332 of the Civil Code of 1910 "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 attaching counsel's name thereto." Lott v. Waycross, 152 Ga. 237, 110 S.E. 217, and cases cited.

(a) "Words traced with a pen, or stamped, printed, or made legible by any other device whereby such act is for the purpose of putting down a man's name at the end of an instrument to attest its validity, and is adopted by the party whose name is so signed, is a sufficient signature and signing of the instrument to which it is signed." See Bouvier's Law Dictionary, titles "Signature and Writing"; Bridges v. Center First National Bank, 47 Tex.Civ.App. 454, 105 S.W. 1018.

(b) A printed signature, or one lithographed on an instrument by the party as signed by him, is sufficient. Hewel v Hogin, 3 Cal.App. 248, 84 P. 1002; Cummings v Landes, 140 Iowa 80, 117 N.W. 22. 3 Bouv. Law Dict 3071.

(c) The motion to dismiss the writ of error in this case, upon the ground that it was not signed by the plaintiff or his attorney, is denied. The names of counsel for plaintiff in error are written with a typewriter at the end of the bill of exceptions, but upon the next page their post office address given as required by the rules of the Court, as well as the "descriptional personal," "counsel for plaintiff in error." Such a signing of the bill of exceptions was sufficient. (The writer does not agree with the majority view of the court in overruling the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions. It is not to the correctness of the rule that a signing with a typewriter is sufficient that the writer dissents. My disagreement with the majority view is upon the particular facts of the case. I am of the opinion that, where counsels' names appear, such names appear simply in compliance with the rules of the court, giving their post office address, so as to receive the notices provided by the rules of the court, and was not attached to the bill of exceptions for the purpose of signing it.)

Upon the particular facts of this case, it was not error for the court, in hearing a rule to distribute...