Cramer v. Parrott

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cramer v. Parrott

254 S.E.2d 504, 149 Ga. App. 385, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1861

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1979

Docket54244

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 254 S.E.2d 504 (Cramer v. Parrott) 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

Cramer v. Parrott, 254 S.E.2d 504, 149 Ga. App. 385, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1861 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Birdsong, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this suit to recover on a promissory note. Defendant answered and also filed a third-party complaint against an alleged co-maker of the note. The case came on for trial before a jury. At the close of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for plaintiff. A judgment was entered in conformity with the directed verdict. The record reflects that no disposition has been made of the third-party complaint, and it therefore is still pending in the trial court. The trial court’s order from which the appeal was taken does not *386 contain the express determination that there was no just reason for delay, nor a direction for the entry of final judgment as provided by CPA § 54 (b) (Code Ann. § 81A-154 (b)). This order is therefore not a final appealable judgment, and an interlocutory appeal has not been authorized. The appeal is premature and must be dismissed. Middleton v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 143 Ga. App. 176 (237 SE2d 684).

Submitted February 7, 1979 — Decided March 16, 1979. Macey & Zusmann, Dennis M. Hall, for appellant. Kemper, Baker & Boswell, Joseph R. Baker, for appellee.

Appeal dismissed.

Quillian, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Birdsong, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this suit to recover on a promissory note. Defendant answered and also filed a third-party complaint against an alleged co-maker of the note. The case came on for trial before a jury. At the close of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for plaintiff. A judgment was entered in conformity with the directed verdict. The record reflects that no disposition has been made of the third-party complaint, and it therefore is still pending in the trial court. The trial court’s order from which the appeal was taken does not *386 contain the express determination that there was no just reason for delay, nor a direction for the entry of final judgment as provided by CPA § 54 (b) (Code Ann. § 81A-154 (b)). This order is therefore not a final appealable judgment, and an interlocutory appeal has not been authorized. The appeal is premature and must be dismissed. Middleton v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 143 Ga. App. 176 (237 SE2d 684).

Submitted February 7, 1979 — Decided March 16, 1979. Macey & Zusmann, Dennis M. Hall, for appellant. Kemper, Baker & Boswell, Joseph R. Baker, for appellee.

Appeal dismissed.

Quillian, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 S.E.2d 504, 149 Ga. App. 385, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 1861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cramer-v-parrott-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack