Farmer v. White Sewing Machine Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Farmer v. White Sewing Machine Co.

116 S.E. 224, 29 Ga. App. 657, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 154

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 16, 1923

Docket13716

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 116 S.E. 224 (Farmer v. White Sewing Machine Co.) 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

Farmer v. White Sewing Machine Co., 116 S.E. 224, 29 Ga. App. 657, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 154 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

“ There being in the bill of exceptions no exception to any ■ final judgment, but only an exception to a judgment striking the defendant’s pleas, no question is presented which this court has jurisdiction to decide. This is true even though there is a recital in the bill of exceptions that the case was finally terminated by a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.” McCranie v. Shipp, 10 Ga. App. 544 (73 S. E. 701); Simmons v. Peagler, 7 Ga. App. 252 (66 S. E. 629); Whidden v. Merry, 8 Ga. App. 564 (69 S. E. 1085). See also Hendricks v. Reid, 125 Ga. 775 (54 S. E. 747); Newberry v. Tenant, 121 Ga. 561 (49 S. E. 621); Harrell v. Tift, 70 Ga. 730; Montgomery v. Reynolds, 124 Ga. 1053 (53 S. E. 512); Lyndon v. Ga. Ry. &c. Co., 129 Ga. 353 (3) (58 S. E. 1047); Mertins v. Pritchard, 135 Ga. 643 (2) (70 S. E. 328); Roddenbery v. Patterson, 136 Ga. 187 (71 S. E. 138); Hodges v. Citizens Bank, 146 Ga. 624, 627 (92 S. E. 49). Under the authorities cited, the motion to dismiss by the defendant in error must be sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. Smith & Christian, for plaintiff in error. Fulwood & Ilargrett, contra.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

“ There being in the bill of exceptions no exception to any ■ final judgment, but only an exception to a judgment striking the defendant’s pleas, no question is presented which this court has jurisdiction to decide. This is true even though there is a recital in the bill of exceptions that the case was finally terminated by a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.” McCranie v. Shipp, 10 Ga. App. 544 (73 S. E. 701); Simmons v. Peagler, 7 Ga. App. 252 (66 S. E. 629); Whidden v. Merry, 8 Ga. App. 564 (69 S. E. 1085). See also Hendricks v. Reid, 125 Ga. 775 (54 S. E. 747); Newberry v. Tenant, 121 Ga. 561 (49 S. E. 621); Harrell v. Tift, 70 Ga. 730; Montgomery v. Reynolds, 124 Ga. 1053 (53 S. E. 512); Lyndon v. Ga. Ry. &c. Co., 129 Ga. 353 (3) (58 S. E. 1047); Mertins v. Pritchard, 135 Ga. 643 (2) (70 S. E. 328); Roddenbery v. Patterson, 136 Ga. 187 (71 S. E. 138); Hodges v. Citizens Bank, 146 Ga. 624, 627 (92 S. E. 49). Under the authorities cited, the motion to dismiss by the defendant in error must be sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. Smith & Christian, for plaintiff in error. Fulwood & Ilargrett, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E. 224, 29 Ga. App. 657, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmer-v-white-sewing-machine-co-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack