Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Donehoo

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Donehoo

177 S.E.2d 264, 122 Ga. App. 444, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 896

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 14, 1970

Docket45479, 45480

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 177 S.E.2d 264 (Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Donehoo) 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

Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Donehoo, 177 S.E.2d 264, 122 Ga. App. 444, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 896 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

1. The defendant bank, which had been sued as guardian of three minor children, filed its appeal, with the proper certificate of review, from the trial court’s action in overruling two motions to dismiss the complaint filed by it in behalf of two of the minor children. Subsequently to the entering of the order appealed from, the plaintiff filed a material amendment to his petition bringing it in two counts based upon two different theories. Since the orders overruling the motions to dismiss do not go the petition as amended, the questions raised on this appeal have become moot and cannot be decided by this court at this time. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tiller, 116 Ga. App. 275 (157 SE2d 57).

2. The plaintiff, in a cross appeal, complains of various statements or rulings in the order of the trial judge which constitute his reasons for refusing to dismiss the complaint. These rulings and reasons given have also become moot by reason of the filing of the amendment. Accordingly, the cross appeal cannot be decided.

Main appeal and cross appeal dismissed.

Jordan, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur. Seay & Sims, Clifford Seay, for appellant. Smalley & Cogburn, John M. Cogburn, Jr., for appellee.

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

Pannell, Judge.

1. The defendant bank, which had been sued as guardian of three minor children, filed its appeal, with the proper certificate of review, from the trial court’s action in overruling two motions to dismiss the complaint filed by it in behalf of two of the minor children. Subsequently to the entering of the order appealed from, the plaintiff filed a material amendment to his petition bringing it in two counts based upon two different theories. Since the orders overruling the motions to dismiss do not go the petition as amended, the questions raised on this appeal have become moot and cannot be decided by this court at this time. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tiller, 116 Ga. App. 275 (157 SE2d 57).

2. The plaintiff, in a cross appeal, complains of various statements or rulings in the order of the trial judge which constitute his reasons for refusing to dismiss the complaint. These rulings and reasons given have also become moot by reason of the filing of the amendment. Accordingly, the cross appeal cannot be decided.

Main appeal and cross appeal dismissed.

Jordan, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur. Seay & Sims, Clifford Seay, for appellant. Smalley & Cogburn, John M. Cogburn, Jr., for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 S.E.2d 264, 122 Ga. App. 444, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-bank-trust-co-v-donehoo-gactapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack