Ellington v. Automobile Credit Sales Co.

88 S.E. 565, 145 Ga. 53, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 172
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided April 12, 1916·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

The Automobile Credit Sales Company commenced an action, by attachment for purchase-money, against C. W. Ellington, J. S. Ellington, and V. L. Williams. The defendants filed an answer, which was amended. The plaintiff demurred to the answer as amended, and on the hearing the demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff was allowed to proceed to verdict and judgment against the defendants. The defendants filed a direct bill of exceptions, in which error was assigned specifically on the judgment sustaining the demurrer to the answer; but there was no assignment of error upon the final judgment in the case. Meld, that the writ of error must be dismissed. Lyndon v. Georgia Railway &c. Co., 129 Ga. 353 (3), 354 (58 S. E. 1047). See also Carpenter v. First National Bank, 13 Ga. App. 497 (79 S. E. 360).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Ellington v. Automobile Credit Sales Co., 88 S.E. 565, 145 Ga. 53, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 172 (Ga. 1916).

88 S.E. 565 (Ellington v. Automobile Credit Sales Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mavity v. Associates Discount Corp.
86 S.E.2d 325 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1955)
Southern Railway Co. v. Floyd County
141 S.E. 497 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Yates v. Olivent
111 S.E. 824 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Winder Lumber Co. v. Washington Brick Co.
99 S.E. 863 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)
Goode v. Hays
89 S.E. 836 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Harms v. Mayor of Savannah
89 S.E. 780 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)