
    Lanier v. Ratcliff.
    Simmons, C. J. — The plaintiff in certiorari having on December 17th, 1892, applied for and obtained the judge’s sanction of the petition for certiorari, and having on the same day filed the petition in the clerk’s office, and the certiorari having been issued in due time and made returnable to the next term of the superior court, the case stood for trial at the May term, 1893, of that court; and the mere failure of the clerk to date the writ of certiorari afforded no excuse to the plaintiff in certiorari for failing to give the defendant in certiorari the notice required by law, that the same was returnable to and stood for a hearing at the term last mentioned. Accordingly there was no error in dismissing the certiorari for want of such notice.
    January 14,1895.
    
      Certiorari. Refore Judge Roney. Burke superior court. December term, 1893.
    The case was tried in the justice’s court on November 17th, 1892. The petition for eertiorari was sanctioned on December 17, and filed in the clerk’s office of the superior court of Bui’ke county on the same day. The clerk issued the writ of eertiorari, directing the magistrate to certify and send up the proceedings “to the next May term of said superior court.” This writ was not dated. On the first day of the May term, 1893, the magistrate filed his answer. The case was not heard at that term. On September 23, 1893, defendant caused plaintiff to be served with written notice of the sanction of the writ and the filing of the answer, further stating that the case “will be heard and determined in vacation by H. O. Roney, judge of the superior courts of the Augusta circuit, at his office in Augusta, G-a., or at such place as lie may determine upon ten days notice to parties litigant or tlieir attorneys, as provided by an order passed by the judge of the superior court presiding in said Burke county on May 24th, 1893; or if not heard in pursuance of said order, it will be heard at the courthouse of said Burke county during the December term, 1893, of the superior court of said county, or at such other time and place as said court may direct.” The certiorari was dismissed for want of due notice of sanction and of time and place of hearing. The order of dismissal was assigned as error, because: (1) It did not appear from the writ that the certiorari was returnable to the May term, 1893, and the notice was given in time for the December term, 1893. (2) The answer not being filed till the May term, 1893, the case could not be heard at that term, and notice was not necessary until the time for hearing had been determined.
   Judgment affirmed.

E. H. Callaway, for plaintiff in error.

Johnston & Brinson, contra.  