Attwell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Attwell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

375 S.E.2d 631, 189 Ga. App. 363, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 1389

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 3, 1988

Docket77618

StatusPublished

This text of 375 S.E.2d 631 (Attwell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.) 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

Attwell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 375 S.E.2d 631, 189 Ga. App. 363, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 1389 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This appeal is from an order of the State Court of Fulton County holding appellant in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order requiring him to appear for a post-judgment deposition.¹ Held:

1. In his first enumeration of error, appellant contends “[t]he order adjudging [him] in contempt is insufficient in law and should be reversed.” We do not agree.

“OCGA § 15-7-4 (5) . . . vests State Courts with jurisdiction to punish ‘contempts by fine not exceeding $500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 20 days, or both.’ [Cit.]” Carey Canada, Inc. v. Hinely, 257 Ga. 150, 151 (356 SE2d 202). In the case sub judice, the state court’s contempt order of June 16, 1988, in addition to finding defendant in [364]*364contempt for his failure to appear as ordered in a prior order of the court, required defendant to “appear for his deposition . . . [and] to pay $250.00 in attorney’s fees, said sum to be paid on or before taking his deposition.” This penalty did not exceed the state court’s jurisdiction under OCGA § 15-7-4 (5). See OCGA § 9-11-37 (b) and Carey Canada, Inc. v. Hinely, 257 Ga. 150, supra.

Decided November 3, 1988 — Rehearing denied November 21, 1988 Joseph J. Attwell, pro se. Goodman, Hudnall & McManus, Lauren J. Larmer, for appellee.

2. In his second enumeration of error, appellant contends “[t]he trial court erred in not vacating the default judgment and dismissing the cause.”

This appeal is not from an order denying appellant’s motion to set aside (designated by appellant as “Motion of Defendant to Vacate Default Judgment”). This is an appeal from the trial court’s order holding appellant in contempt of court. Consequently, this court has no jurisdiction to consider appellant’s second enumeration of error. See Lewis v. Sun Mgt., 182 Ga. App. 560 (356 SE2d 526).

Judgment affirmed.

Pope and Benham, JJ., concur.

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

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This appeal is from an order of the State Court of Fulton County holding appellant in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order requiring him to appear for a post-judgment deposition.¹ Held:

1. In his first enumeration of error, appellant contends “[t]he order adjudging [him] in contempt is insufficient in law and should be reversed.” We do not agree.

“OCGA § 15-7-4 (5) . . . vests State Courts with jurisdiction to punish ‘contempts by fine not exceeding $500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 20 days, or both.’ [Cit.]” Carey Canada, Inc. v. Hinely, 257 Ga. 150, 151 (356 SE2d 202). In the case sub judice, the state court’s contempt order of June 16, 1988, in addition to finding defendant in [364]*364contempt for his failure to appear as ordered in a prior order of the court, required defendant to “appear for his deposition . . . [and] to pay $250.00 in attorney’s fees, said sum to be paid on or before taking his deposition.” This penalty did not exceed the state court’s jurisdiction under OCGA § 15-7-4 (5). See OCGA § 9-11-37 (b) and Carey Canada, Inc. v. Hinely, 257 Ga. 150, supra.

Decided November 3, 1988 — Rehearing denied November 21, 1988 Joseph J. Attwell, pro se. Goodman, Hudnall & McManus, Lauren J. Larmer, for appellee.

2. In his second enumeration of error, appellant contends “[t]he trial court erred in not vacating the default judgment and dismissing the cause.”

This appeal is not from an order denying appellant’s motion to set aside (designated by appellant as “Motion of Defendant to Vacate Default Judgment”). This is an appeal from the trial court’s order holding appellant in contempt of court. Consequently, this court has no jurisdiction to consider appellant’s second enumeration of error. See Lewis v. Sun Mgt., 182 Ga. App. 560 (356 SE2d 526).

Judgment affirmed.

Pope and Benham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

375 S.E.2d 631, 189 Ga. App. 363, 1988 Ga. App. LEXIS 1389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/attwell-v-sears-roebuck-co-gactapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack