C. I. T. Corporation v. Smith

23 S.E.2d 503, 68 Ga. App. 556, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 536
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 4, 1942
Docket29823.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 23 S.E.2d 503 (C. I. T. Corporation v. Smith) 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
C. I. T. Corporation v. Smith, 23 S.E.2d 503, 68 Ga. App. 556, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 536 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Opinion

Felton, J.

A verdict in favor of a plea to the jurisdiction is not a final judgment from which a writ of error will lie. Accordingly, where, as here, the only assignment of error is on the direction of a verdict against the plea to the jurisdiction, on the theory that it would have been final if it had been rendered in favor of the plea, the writ of error will be dismissed for the reason that no final judgment, or a judgment which would have been final if rendered as plaintiff in error contended, was excepted to. Because the Supreme Court in so many recent cases has applied the above rule in cases involving similar questions, the request to certify the question to the Supreme Court is denied. Harris v. Stowers, 192 Ga. 215 (15 S. E. 2d, 193); Loveless v. McCollum, 189 Ga. 219 (5 S. E. 2d, 582); Martin v. Green, 188 Ga. 444 (4 S. E. 2d, 137); Gilbert v. Tippens, 183 Ga. 497 (188 S. E. 699). For cases involving the specific question, see Ross v. Mercer, 115 Ga. 353 (41 S. E. 594); Warren v. Blevins, 94 Ga. 215 (21 S. E. 459); Porter v. State, 43 Ga. App. 287 (158 S. E. 770), and cit. Whether or not this court would or would *557 not ordinarily order the exceptions filed as pendente lite exceptions, counsel for plaintiff in error in his oral argument stated that he made no such request because he had filed pendente lite exceptions in time to preserve the points sought to be made here.

Decided December 4, 1942. Wright & Covington, Woodruff & Ward, for plaintiff in error. Maddox & Griffin, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., oonour.

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

Related

In the Interest of J. F., a Child
789 S.E.2d 274 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2016)
H. W. Brown Transportation Co. v. Edgeworth
84 S.E.2d 103 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
City of Summerville v. Georgia Power Company
41 S.E.2d 911 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Mutual Fertilizer Company v. Deloach
35 S.E.2d 487 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 S.E.2d 503, 68 Ga. App. 556, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-i-t-corporation-v-smith-gactapp-1942.