Chapman v. Gray
| Decision Date | 31 May 1850 |
| Docket Number | No. 58.,58. |
| Citation | 8 Ga. 337 |
| Parties | Ambrose Chapman vs. James M. Gray. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
The defendant in error joined issue with a protestation, and moved to dismiss the writ on error—
1. Because no copy of the writ of error was served on the defendant or his counsel.
2. Because the bill of exceptions does not specify the errors complained of.
The following acknowledgment appeared on the citation:
The bill of exceptions, after stating the decision of the Court affirming the judgment appealed from in the Court of Ordinary, added, " To which decision of the said Court, and the judgment thereon, affirming the judgment of the Court of Ordinary, the said Chapman excepts, and tenders, " &c.
Cone, for the motion.
Chappell., contra.
By the Court. —Lumpkin, J. delivering the opinion.
The only ground taken in this motion, which we deem it necessary to notice, is, that no copy of the writ of error was served on the defendant or his counsel. The 21st Rule of this Court requires that this should be done within ten days from the signing and certifying of the bill of exceptions. Manual, 31. And a failure to comply with this provision would be fatal to the plaintiff's case.
The position assumed in the argument is, that the rule itself is useless, and it is sought, for this reason, to screen the party from the consequences of his neglect. This Court cannot, and will not entertain such an argument, or sustain such an excuse.
The Legislature has clothed the Judges of the Supremo Court with the discretion of establishing Rules of Practice. §14 of the Act of 1845. This power is inherent in all Courts.
[3.} The rules of this Court are the laws of the Court, and must be obeyed, until repealed, unless it can be shown that they arc repugnant to the paramount law; and this is not pretended in the present instance. All judicial rules are judicial legislation. But this constitutes no good objection to their validity. I venture the assertion, that there is not an appellate tribunal in the Union, whose rules are so few and simple. The Supreme Court of New York, under the new code, in which reform is supposed to have been carried to the ne plus ultra of attainable perfection, at a general session of the Judges, established, at the beginning, 92 Rules of Practice, occupying an octavo pamphlet of 57 pages. Our whole number now is 33, filling some ton pages of our duodecimo manual; and a largo portion of these were rendered necessary by the anomalous attitude in which we were placed, by having to devise a plan to engraft the writ of error, designated by the amended Constitution, as the mode of bringing up cases, upon the bill of exceptions, provided for by the Act organizing this Court. The only inference to be drawn from the omission by the General Assembly to act in the matter, is, that they designed to delegate this delicate and important trust entirely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Wallace, 25034
...judiciary. 'That the courts possess certain inherent powers, is a proposition which, so far as we know, has never been questioned. Chapman v. Gray, 8 Ga. 337; Bradley v. State, 111 Ga. 168, 36 S.E. 630, 50 L.R.A. 691, 78 Am.St.Rep. 157; Devereux v. Atlanta Railway & Power Co., 111 Ga. 855, ......
-
Lineberger v. Williams
...Benefield, 224 Ga. 208, 209(5), 160 S.E.2d 895 (1968); Hicks v. Maple Valley Corp., 223 Ga. 577, 578, 156 S.E.2d 904 (1967); Chapman v. Gray, 8 Ga. 337, 339 (1850). I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Banke joins in this ...
-
Fulghum Industries, Inc. v. Pollard Lumber Co.
...the usual tile of brick from the Israelites, without furnishing the proper allowance of straw and mortar for their manufacture.' Chapman v. Gray, 8 Ga. 337, 340. The duty of one who brings a case to this court for review would seem clearly to dictate that he should so propare his bill of ex......
-
Perdue v. Tyler
...to their rule-making authority are binding on those who practice in the court and must be observed. Code Ann. § 24-106; Chapman v. Gray, 8 Ga. 337(3) (1850); Hicks v. Maple Valley Corp., 223 Ga. 577, 156 S.E.2d 904 (1967); King v. Skinner, 101 Ga.App. 102(2), 112 S.E.2d 789 (1960). It was n......