Bush v. Kent

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bush v. Kent

180 S.E. 858, 51 Ga. App. 513, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 389

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 13, 1935

Docket24559

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 S.E. 858 (Bush v. Kent) 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

Bush v. Kent, 180 S.E. 858, 51 Ga. App. 513, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 389 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. There being no assignment of error in the bill of exceptions other than assignments of error as to a judgment overruling demurrers of the plaintiff to the defendant’s plea and to an amendment to the plea, there is no exception to a final judgment, or to a judgment where, had a judgment been rendered as contended for by the plaintiff in error, it would have been final, there is presented nothing for this court’s consideration, and the case is prematurely brought to this court. Code of 1933, § 6-701 (Code of 1910, § 6138) ; Stromberg-Carlson Telephone Manufacturing Co. v. Bisbee, 115 Ga. 346 (41 S. E. 573); Neal-Blun Co. v. Zeigler, 11 Ga. App. 273 (75 S. E. 142). See also Simmons v. Peagler, 7 Ga. App. 252 (66 S. E. 629).

2. The motion to dismiss the writ of error is sustained, with direction that the official copy of the bill of exceptions of 'file in the office of the clerk of the trial court be considered as exceptions pendente lite.

Writ of error dismissed, with direction.

Jenkins, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur. Claxton & Qlaxton, for plaintiff in error. J. Eugene Cook, E. L. Rowland, contra.

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

Stephens, J.

1. There being no assignment of error in the bill of exceptions other than assignments of error as to a judgment overruling demurrers of the plaintiff to the defendant’s plea and to an amendment to the plea, there is no exception to a final judgment, or to a judgment where, had a judgment been rendered as contended for by the plaintiff in error, it would have been final, there is presented nothing for this court’s consideration, and the case is prematurely brought to this court. Code of 1933, § 6-701 (Code of 1910, § 6138) ; Stromberg-Carlson Telephone Manufacturing Co. v. Bisbee, 115 Ga. 346 (41 S. E. 573); Neal-Blun Co. v. Zeigler, 11 Ga. App. 273 (75 S. E. 142). See also Simmons v. Peagler, 7 Ga. App. 252 (66 S. E. 629).

2. The motion to dismiss the writ of error is sustained, with direction that the official copy of the bill of exceptions of 'file in the office of the clerk of the trial court be considered as exceptions pendente lite.

Writ of error dismissed, with direction.

Jenkins, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur. Claxton & Qlaxton, for plaintiff in error. J. Eugene Cook, E. L. Rowland, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.E. 858, 51 Ga. App. 513, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bush-v-kent-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack