Bearden v. Longino

184 S.E. 319, 181 Ga. 807, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 439
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 21, 1936·No. No. 11210·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Bell, Justice.

In a suit by an executor to construe a will, and for other relief, the court entered an order construing the will adversely to the contentions of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff excepted pendente lite. The case proceeded to trial on the other issues, and resulted in a non-suit. Thereafter the plaintiff sued out a bill of exceptions assigning error upon the exceptions pendente lite, but not on the order which construed the will, and not on the judgment of nonsuit. Held, that the bill of exceptions is fatally defective in failing to assign error upon a final judgment; and on motion the writ of error must be dismissed. Perdue v. Anderson, 137 Ga. 512 (73 S. E. 1050) ; Durrence v. Waters, 140 Ga. 762 (79 S. E. 841); Durrence v. Waters, 143 Ga. 223 (84 S. E. 471); Newton v. Roberts, 163 Ga. 135 (135 S. E. 505); Kumpe v. Hudgins, 39 Ga. App. 788 (3) (149 S. E. 46).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Bearden v. Longino, 184 S.E. 319, 181 Ga. 807, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 439 (Ga. 1936).

184 S.E. 319 (Bearden v. Longino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cordele Sash, Door & Lumber Co. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
66 S.E.2d 767 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Martin v. Chester
63 S.E.2d 900 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
Slotin Company v. Eiseman
21 S.E.2d 923 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Slotin & Co. v. Eiseman
68 Ga. App. 33 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Hicks v. Community Loan & Investment Co.
10 S.E.2d 226 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Rabhan v. Rabhan
195 S.E. 193 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Bearden v. Longino
190 S.E. 12 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)