Summary
In Picklesimer v. Smith, supra, there was a contest between Picklesimer, a materialman, and Smith, the holder of a security deed. At the time of its execution, it appeared that all the materialmen who had contracts with the owner had commenced to furnish labor or material to Burke, the owner, for the improvement of the lot, and had practically completed their contracts.
Summary of this case from Georgia State Savings Asso. v. WilsonOpinion
No. 26445.
December 12, 1968.
Carson Carlton Picklesimer, pro se.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Mathew Robins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Before DYER and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges, and CABOT, District Judge.
The record shows that the appellant has not exhausted his state remedies under the new Habeas Corpus Act, Georgia Code § 50-127, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Therefore the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Peters v. Rutledge, 5 Cir. 1968, 397 F.2d 731; Henderson v. Dutton, 5 Cir. 1968, 397 F.2d 375; Rearden v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1968, 403 F.2d 723 [November 14, 1968].
This remedy was not available when the original habeas petition was filed March 2, 1967. The effective date of the Act was July 1, 1967, so that the remedy was available long before the District Court denied the petition.
Affirmed.