Futch v. Mathis

97 S.E. 516, 148 Ga. 558, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 440
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 16, 1918
DocketNo. 787
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 516 (Futch v. Mathis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Futch v. Mathis, 97 S.E. 516, 148 Ga. 558, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 440 (Ga. 1918).

Opinion

Hill, J.

Two separate actions of ejectment were brought against two defendants. By agreement of counsel they were consolidated as one case, and were thus tried, and separate verdicts and judgments were rendered in each case in favor of the plaintiffs. By agreement of counsel representing both suits motions for new trial were consolidated and heard as one motion upon one record, and there is but one judgment overruling the two motions, and but one bill of exceptions is in this court. Held, that each of the defendants had the right to except to the overruling of the motion for new trial in his own case. But the consolidation of the two motions for new trial, and the overruling of the [559]*559motions in one judgment, did not authorize the two defendants to unite in one bill of exceptions to review judgments in two distinct cases by one writ of error. This court is without jurisdiction to entertain such a bill of exceptions, there being no provision of law for such procedure. It follows that the bill of exceptions must be dismissed. Western Assurance Co. v. Way, 98 Ca. 746 (27 S. E. 167); Center v. Fickett Paper Co., 117 Ga. 222 (43 S. E. 498); Dickey v. State, 101 Ga. 572 (28 S. E. 980); Averitt v. Simpson, 147 Ga. 352 (94 S. E. 242); Cutter v. Central Bank &c., 147 Ga. 754 (95 S. E. 285).

No. 787. November 16, 1918. -Writ of error; from Berrien. J. A. Alexander and W. D. Buie, for plaintiffs in error. G. A. Christian and J. D. Lovett, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices ooneur.

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

Related

Wilson v. Davis
129 S.E.2d 910 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963)
Dempsey v. State
119 S.E.2d 298 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Stephenson v. Futch
98 S.E.2d 374 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1957)
Brownlee v. Brownlee
46 S.E.2d 901 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Causey v. Waters
22 S.E.2d 761 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
McCrary v. Salmon
15 S.E.2d 442 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Hornsby v. State
163 S.E. 516 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Allen v. Woods
161 S.E. 655 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Jennings v. Longino
158 S.E. 565 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Beck & Jones v. Chenoweth-Holder Lumber Co.
152 S.E. 899 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)
Washington v. State
125 S.E. 836 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Askew v. Powell
117 S.E. 769 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Fillingame v. State
109 S.E. 916 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Powell v. State
108 S.E. 464 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Allen v. State
106 S.E. 796 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 S.E. 516, 148 Ga. 558, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/futch-v-mathis-ga-1918.