COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK OF CEDARTOWN v. Chapman

Supreme Court of Georgia

COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK OF CEDARTOWN v. Chapman

71 S.E.2d 425, 209 Ga. 152, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 446

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 10, 1952

Docket17916

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 S.E.2d 425 (COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK OF CEDARTOWN v. Chapman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK OF CEDARTOWN v. Chapman, 71 S.E.2d 425, 209 Ga. 152, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 446 (Ga. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Almand, Justice.

Mrs. Ruth Nichols Chapman, as administratrix of the estate of V. S. Chapman, filed an. equitable petition against Commercial National Bank of Cedartown and another. No answer having been filed by the defendant bank within the statutory time, counsel for the plaintiff made an oral motion to enter judgment in her favor when the case was called for trial. This motion was overruled, and on writ of error to this court such order was reversed. 208 Ga. 593 (68 S. E. 2d, 603). Subsequently, there came on to be heard (1) a plea in abatement and traverse of the sheriff’s return of service, and (2) a motion to open the default, filed by the defendant bank. The plaintiff filed demurrers and motions to strike such pleadings filed by the bank. In two separate orders the court disallowed the plea in abatement and traverse, and the motion to open the default. To these orders the bank filed direct exceptions, wherein it assigned error only on said two orders. There is no assignment of error in the bill of exceptions on any other order or judgment. The plaintiff has filed a motion in this court to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that there is no exception to any final order or judgment in the case. Held:

A direct bill of exceptions does not lie to judgments overruling a plea in abatement and traverse of the sheriff’s return, or the overruling of a motion to open a default. Neither of said orders was such a final judgment as gives to this court jurisdiction to entertain a direct bill of exceptions. See Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Williams, 146 Ga. 27 (90 S. E. 478); Douglas v. Hardin, 163 Ga. 643 (136 S. E. 793).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P.J., not participating.

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

Almand, Justice.

Mrs. Ruth Nichols Chapman, as administratrix of the estate of V. S. Chapman, filed an. equitable petition against Commercial National Bank of Cedartown and another. No answer having been filed by the defendant bank within the statutory time, counsel for the plaintiff made an oral motion to enter judgment in her favor when the case was called for trial. This motion was overruled, and on writ of error to this court such order was reversed. 208 Ga. 593 (68 S. E. 2d, 603). Subsequently, there came on to be heard (1) a plea in abatement and traverse of the sheriff’s return of service, and (2) a motion to open the default, filed by the defendant bank. The plaintiff filed demurrers and motions to strike such pleadings filed by the bank. In two separate orders the court disallowed the plea in abatement and traverse, and the motion to open the default. To these orders the bank filed direct exceptions, wherein it assigned error only on said two orders. There is no assignment of error in the bill of exceptions on any other order or judgment. The plaintiff has filed a motion in this court to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that there is no exception to any final order or judgment in the case. Held:

A direct bill of exceptions does not lie to judgments overruling a plea in abatement and traverse of the sheriff’s return, or the overruling of a motion to open a default. Neither of said orders was such a final judgment as gives to this court jurisdiction to entertain a direct bill of exceptions. See Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Williams, 146 Ga. 27 (90 S. E. 478); Douglas v. Hardin, 163 Ga. 643 (136 S. E. 793).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P.J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E.2d 425, 209 Ga. 152, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-national-bank-of-cedartown-v-chapman-ga-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack