Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

FRENCH v. LONG, Judge.

CARLISLE, Judge.

The Court of Appeals has no original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a judge of the superior court to require him to perform any act except in aid of a party bringing the case to this court by writ of error and cannot, by such a writ, compel the trial court to take any step in a case pending in that court and in which no writ of error has been sued out or applied for. Central R. Bkg. Co. v. Miller, 91 Ga. 83 ( 16 S.E. 256); Conwell v. McWhorter, 93 Ga. 254 ( 19 S.E. 50); Echols v. Candler, 108 Ga. 785 ( 33 S.E. 811); Savannah, Fla. c. Ry. Co. v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 113 Ga. 916 (1) ( 39 S.E. 399); Fountain v. Crum, 148 Ga. 272 ( 96 S.E. 337); Marlowe v. Worrill, 183 Ga. 275 ( 188 S.E. 340); McPhail v. Bagley, 96 Ga. App. 179 ( 99 S.E.2d 500). Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction to grant a writ of mandamus, as prayed, against the Judge of Houston Superior Court requiring him to set and assess a reasonable supersedeas bond pending his consideration of a motion for a new trial in a criminal case in which no bill of exceptions has been tendered. It follows that the mandamus nisi originally issued by this court upon application was improvidently issued and must be withdrawn, and the

Application for mandamus dismissed. Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur

DECIDED MAY 21, 1958.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FRENCH v. LONG
(May 21, 1958)