Coleman v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 31 January 1872
• Citation: 45 Ga. 317
• Parties: ISAAC COLEMAN. v. HON. JAMES H. JOHNSON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

45 Ga. 317

ISAAC COLEMAN. v. HON. JAMES H. JOHNSON.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1872.)

###

Mandamus, Bill of exceptions. Muscogee county. May Term, 1870.

This was mandamus nisi, calling upon Judge Johnson to show cause why he did not certify a bill of exceptions in Isaac Coleman v. Ransom & Company, or endorse thereon his reasons for not doing so.

He answered that the case of Isaac Coleman, and Hannah Coleman v. Ransom & Company, and the cross bill of Ransom & Company were heard before him in May Term, 1870, and much oral and written evidence was introduced; that he held that there was no equity in Hannah Coleman's bill. She excepted, and "after the trial presented her bill of exceptions, which was duly signed and certified" by him; that "after the verdict, Isaac Coleman made a motion for a new trial on several grounds, of facts recited therein erroneously, and not truly and fairly presenting the case; that no brief of the evidence, at the time the motion for a new trial was made, had been agreed upon by counsel, or approved by the Court; that it was, however, agreed by counsel that the motion should be heard without the brief of evidence, and that it should be made out afterwards, and if the attorneys could not agree upon it, the Court should decide and pass upon the difference between them, in relation to the same." He further said that "under this agreement, the Court heard the motion, and refused a new trial. No bill of exceptions has, by Isaac Coleman or his attorneys, been presented to him for, or *on account of any ruling in said cause, nor has he been informed that any brief of evidence has ever been agreed upon by the parties, and none has been approved by him. Long after the time for presenting and signing bills of exceptions had elapsed, Cole-man\'s counsel called upon him and said he had a bill of exceptions in the Coleman case, and asked him to endorse upon it his refusal to sign it, and he replied that no bill of exceptions had been presented, and for that reason refused to make the endorsement." He closed by reiterating that \'\'no bill of exceptions has been presented to him by Isaac Coleman, or his attorneys in said case, " and that he did not know the averments in the exhibits to the petition served upon him, as he was not served with a copy, and prayed that the rule be discharged.

It appeared by the affidavit of Isaac Coleman's counsel that several days before the end of the time for presenting the bill of...