Atlanta Art Glass Co. v. Southern Saw & Machinery Works

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Atlanta Art Glass Co. v. Southern Saw & Machinery Works

87 S.E. 693, 17 Ga. App. 470, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 702

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1916

Docket6488

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 693 (Atlanta Art Glass Co. v. Southern Saw & Machinery Works) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atlanta Art Glass Co. v. Southern Saw & Machinery Works, 87 S.E. 693, 17 Ga. App. 470, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. In all cases tried in the municipal court of Atlanta by a judge without a jury, the judgment of the court must be rendered and publicly announced in open court. Acts 1913, p. 167, § 42 (a). After a judgment in favor of a defendant has been so announced by the judge, it is error to allow the plaintiff, over the objection of the defendant, to dismiss his case, although the motion to dismiss be made before the judgment is written up. Merchants’ Bank v. Rawls, 7 Ga. 191 (4), 200 (50 Am. D. 394); Peeples v. Root, 48 Ga, 592; Hugley v. Holstein, 34 Ga. 572; Meador v. Dollar Savings Bank, 56 Ga. 605 (4), 609.

[471]*471Decided January 11, 1916.

Complaint; from municipal court of Atlanta. February 24, 1915.

Loviclc G. Fortson, Green, Tilson & McKinney, for plaintiff in error. Anderson, Slate & D’Orr, contra.

2. The appellate division of the municipal court of Atlanta erred in sustaining the judgment of the trial judge. Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Broyles, J.

1. In all cases tried in the municipal court of Atlanta by a judge without a jury, the judgment of the court must be rendered and publicly announced in open court. Acts 1913, p. 167, § 42 (a). After a judgment in favor of a defendant has been so announced by the judge, it is error to allow the plaintiff, over the objection of the defendant, to dismiss his case, although the motion to dismiss be made before the judgment is written up. Merchants’ Bank v. Rawls, 7 Ga. 191 (4), 200 (50 Am. D. 394); Peeples v. Root, 48 Ga, 592; Hugley v. Holstein, 34 Ga. 572; Meador v. Dollar Savings Bank, 56 Ga. 605 (4), 609.

[471]*471Decided January 11, 1916.

Complaint; from municipal court of Atlanta. February 24, 1915.

Loviclc G. Fortson, Green, Tilson & McKinney, for plaintiff in error. Anderson, Slate & D’Orr, contra.

2. The appellate division of the municipal court of Atlanta erred in sustaining the judgment of the trial judge. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 693, 17 Ga. App. 470, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlanta-art-glass-co-v-southern-saw-machinery-works-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack