Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Cochran

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Cochran

138 S.E. 856, 37 Ga. App. 33, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 442

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 14, 1927

Docket18097

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 138 S.E. 856 (Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Cochran) 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

Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Cochran, 138 S.E. 856, 37 Ga. App. 33, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

1. “When a defendant against whom a verdict has been rendered makes a motion for a new .trial, he can not properly, while the motion is still pending and undisposed of, bring to this court for review any ruling, order, or decision made by the judge during the progress of the case.” Gross v. Wilds, 21 Ga. App. 620 (94 S. E. 812); Kelly & Jones Co. v. Moore, 125 Ga. 382 (54 S. E. 118); Dulce v. Story, 113 Ga. 112 (38 S. E. 337); Carreker v. Thornton, 1 Ga. App. 508 (57 S. E. 988).

2. “When in a given case it should have been obvious that the writ of error was premature, this court will refuse an application to allow the bill of exceptions to be withdrawn and filed in the court below as exceptions pendente lite.” United Glass Co. v. McConnell, 110 Ga. 616 (2) (36 S. E. 58); Harvey v. Bowles, 112 Ga. 421 (2) (37 S. E. 364); Burkhalter v. Roach, 145 Ga. 834 (4) (90 S. E. 52).

3. Under the rulings just stated and the facts of this case, the bill of exceptions must be dismissed, and the request of counsel for the plaintiff in error that he be allowed to withdraw the bill of exceptions, and that this court direct that the copy of the bill of exceptions of file in the lower court operate as exceptions pendente lite, must be denied.

Writ of error dismissed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Jjuke, J., disqualified.

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

Broyles, O. J.

1. “When a defendant against whom a verdict has been rendered makes a motion for a new .trial, he can not properly, while the motion is still pending and undisposed of, bring to this court for review any ruling, order, or decision made by the judge during the progress of the case.” Gross v. Wilds, 21 Ga. App. 620 (94 S. E. 812); Kelly & Jones Co. v. Moore, 125 Ga. 382 (54 S. E. 118); Dulce v. Story, 113 Ga. 112 (38 S. E. 337); Carreker v. Thornton, 1 Ga. App. 508 (57 S. E. 988).

2. “When in a given case it should have been obvious that the writ of error was premature, this court will refuse an application to allow the bill of exceptions to be withdrawn and filed in the court below as exceptions pendente lite.” United Glass Co. v. McConnell, 110 Ga. 616 (2) (36 S. E. 58); Harvey v. Bowles, 112 Ga. 421 (2) (37 S. E. 364); Burkhalter v. Roach, 145 Ga. 834 (4) (90 S. E. 52).

3. Under the rulings just stated and the facts of this case, the bill of exceptions must be dismissed, and the request of counsel for the plaintiff in error that he be allowed to withdraw the bill of exceptions, and that this court direct that the copy of the bill of exceptions of file in the lower court operate as exceptions pendente lite, must be denied.

Writ of error dismissed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Jjuke, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E. 856, 37 Ga. App. 33, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-merchants-bank-v-cochran-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack