Williams v. City of Dublin

Decision Date04 November 1919
Docket Number10882.
PartiesWILLIAMS v. CITY OF DUBLIN.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court.

One who seeks a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of a recorder's court of any town or city, and who does not file an affidavit in forma pauperis, must, as a condition precedent to obtaining the writ, file such a bond as is required by law, and this fact must be affirmatively shown by the petition; and it is not so shown by the mere statement in the petition that the bond required by law in such a case has been filed, or words to that effect, such a statement being a mere conclusion of the petitioner.

Where a certified copy of the bond is not attached to the petition, "the petition must set forth all the essential substantive facts which are necessary to enable the judge of the superior court to intelligently decide whether or not the bond given is really such a bond as is demanded by the statute." Hubert v. City of Thomasville, 18 Ga.App. 756, 90 S.E. 720.

One of the essentials of a bond given by one who seeks to review by certiorari a judgment of a recorder's court of any city or town is that the bond shall be made payable to the municipal corporation under which the court exists. Park's Ann. Code, § 5191(a).

In the instant case the petition for the writ of certiorari sought to review a judgment of the recorder's court of the city of Dublin. No pauper's affidavit as to the petitioner's inability to give the required bond was filed, and the petition failed to show that the bond given was made payable to the city of Dublin. The court, therefore, did not err in refusing to sanction the writ.

Error from Superior Court, Laurens County; J. L. Kent, Judge.

Petition for certiorari by Elsie Williams against the City of Dublin, to review a judgment of the recorder's court. Judgment for defendant, and petitioner brings error. Affirmed.

W. A. Dampier and J. A. Merritt, both of Dublin, for plaintiff in error.

T. W. Evans, of Dublin, for defendant in error.

BROYLES, C.J.

Judgment affirmed.

LUKE and BLOODWORTH, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT