City of Tallapoosa v. Brock

85 S.E. 755, 143 Ga. 599, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 544

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: June 25, 1915
• Status: Published

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. “Save as to eases specially provided for by law (such as exception to the grant of an injunction, or the appointment of or refusal to appoint a receiver), no case can be brought to this court by bill of exceptions, so long as the same is pending in the court below, unless the decision complained of would have been a final disposition of the case, had it been rendered as the excepting party claims that it should have been.” Baldwin v. Lowe, 129 Ga. 711 (59 S. E. 772); Civil Code (1910), § 6138.

June 25, 1915.

Action for damages; from Haralson superior court.

Lloyd Thomas and M. J. Head, for plaintiff in error.

2. Where to a suit for damages the defendant filed several pleas in bar and abatement, only two of which — one of res adjudícala, and one based upon the ground that the present action was a renewal of one that had been withdrawn by ifiamtiif without having paid the costs or making a pauper affidavit of her inability so to do (Civil Code (1910), § 5625) — were passed upon by the trial judge, to whom, by agreement, the issues thus raised were submitted without the intervention of a jury, who found against the pleas, such judgment is not a final judgment that can be reviewed by direct bill of exceptions to this court. Johnson v. Battle, 120 Ga. 649 (48 S. E. 128) ; Baldwin v. Lowe, supra; Johnson v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 141 Ga. 721 (81 S. E. 873).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.