Enecks v. International Harvester Co. of America

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Enecks v. International Harvester Co. of America

87 S.E. 811, 17 Ga. App. 548, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 771

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 28, 1916

Docket6595

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 811 (Enecks v. International Harvester Co. of America) 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

Enecks v. International Harvester Co. of America, 87 S.E. 811, 17 Ga. App. 548, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 771 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

There being in the bill of exceptions no exception to any real final judgment, but an exception only tQ a judgment sustaining a special and general demurrer to the defendant’s answer, and striking the ' answer, and it not appearing that any final judgment was rendered, no question is presented which this court has jurisdiction to decide. This is true although it is recited in the bill of exceptions that this judgment overruling the answer disposed of the case, and was a final disposition of the same “for the reason that the said defendant’s answer was then and there stricken at the time of said ruling.” McCranie v. Shipp, 10 Ga. App. 544 (73 S. E. 701); Jones v. Pool, 5 Ga. App. 113 (62 S. E. 711); Johnson v. Battle, 120 Ga. 649 (48 S. E. 128); Johnson v. Merchants &c. Bank, 141 Ga. 721 (81 S. E. 873). Accordingly the writ of error in this case must be Dismissed.

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

Broyles, J.

There being in the bill of exceptions no exception to any real final judgment, but an exception only tQ a judgment sustaining a special and general demurrer to the defendant’s answer, and striking the ' answer, and it not appearing that any final judgment was rendered, no question is presented which this court has jurisdiction to decide. This is true although it is recited in the bill of exceptions that this judgment overruling the answer disposed of the case, and was a final disposition of the same “for the reason that the said defendant’s answer was then and there stricken at the time of said ruling.” McCranie v. Shipp, 10 Ga. App. 544 (73 S. E. 701); Jones v. Pool, 5 Ga. App. 113 (62 S. E. 711); Johnson v. Battle, 120 Ga. 649 (48 S. E. 128); Johnson v. Merchants &c. Bank, 141 Ga. 721 (81 S. E. 873). Accordingly the writ of error in this case must be Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 811, 17 Ga. App. 548, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enecks-v-international-harvester-co-of-america-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack