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

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 11, 1916·No. 6488·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

87 S.E. 693 (Atlanta Art Glass Co. v. Southern Saw & Machinery Works) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related