Pitts v. Hall
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Citation | 60 Ga. 390 |
| Parties | Pitts, relator. v. Hall,, Judge, respondent. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
*Mandamus. Practice in the Supreme Court. January Term, 1878.
Reported in the opinion.
Emmett Womack, for petitioner.
No appearance contra.
1. This application is for a mandamus absolute against Judge Hall to certify a bill of exceptions. It should have been an application for a mandamus nisi. Code, § 4258.
In one case in 45 Ga, 618—Dougherty v. Harvey—the mandamus nisi was dispensed with; but that was where but onesingle question was made, and the judge was perfectly willing to sign the bill of exceptions, if his doubt on a single question of law in respect to the sole question whether a bill of exceptions to the judgment dissolving an injunction could be presented later than fifteen days after the day of the judgment, were removed.
The Code is explicit, and we are not inclined to extend the principle ruled as an exception in that case to any not fully covered by it. In this case there is no evidence on the papers of notice or by affidavit of notice to Judge Hall, or to the solicitor general, and it is a case where the party was indicted and sentenced, and seeks to be relieved of it by habeas corpus. We hold that the mandamus nisi should be applied for; and regular notices to the judge and the state's counsel ought to appear. Nobody was present to represent either.
2. But in looking into the case made by the bill of exceptions, we do not see that it could benefit the defendant if brought before us.
He was tried in the county court and sentenced; he carried the judgment to the superior court, where is was affirmed; *he brought it here, the writ of error was dismissed and judgment affirmed; the county court was abolished, but its business turned over to the superior court by the act of 1877, p, 64; that court ordered the sentence executed by an order entered on its minutes, signed by the solicitor general, but by order of the court, and the minutes regularly signed by the judge.
Under these facts, it is an attempt to review a second time a judgment of the county court, of the superior court, and of this court. It cannot be done. There must be an end of litigation, and the sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction must be enforced.
The case is covered by the case of Harris v. The State, 2 Kelly, 290, 293, 294.
The ordinary undertook to turn out the defendant by writ of habeas corpus, the superior court reversed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Holland
...was induced to buy, enter and make valuable improvements on the land. 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 60; 7 Paige, 137-143; 42 Am. Dec. 447; 60 Ga. 390; 79 Ill. 233; 8 Ill. 506; 49 Ark. 241; Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 167. 2. No sufficient tender has ever been made. 53 Ark. 69, 71. OPINION RIDDICK, J., (after......
-
Pelham Mfg. Co v. Scaife
...passed upon by this court, and for that reason the judge who presided should certify the bill of exceptions. The rulings in Pitts v. Hall, 60 Ga. 390, and Dotterer v. Harden, 88 Ga. 145, 13 S. E. 971. in which the Supreme Court looked to the merits of the proposed bill of exceptions in dete......
-
Pelham Mfg. Co. v. Scaife
... ... exceptions. The ruling in this case must be controlled by the ... ruling of the Supreme Court in Hall County v ... Gilmer, 123 Ga. 174, 51 S.E. 307, in which the writer ... (then a judge of the superior courts), presiding for Judge ... Kimsey in ... reason the judge who presided should certify the bill of ... exceptions. The rulings in Pitts v. Hall, 60 Ga ... 390, and Dotterer v. Harden, 88 Ga. 145, 13 S.E ... 971, in which the Supreme Court looked to the merits of the ... proposed ... ...
-
McBride v. Graeber
... ... court, and which the city court of Leesburg would have no ... jurisdiction to originally try. In the case of Pitts v ... Hall, 60 Ga. 390, the Supreme Court said: ... "The ordinary undertook to turn out the defendant by ... writ of habeas corpus, the superior ... ...