Garman v. City of Atlanta

191 S.E. 164, 55 Ga. App. 683, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 460
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 9, 1937·No. 26036·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Guerry, J.

By this writ of error exception is taken to a judgment sustaining a plea of res judicata to the plaintiff’s action. The judgment recited: “Whereupon it is considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that the plea of res adjudicata be and the same is sustained.” It nowhere appears in the bill of exceptions that a final judgment was taken. Under the rulings of the Supreme Court in English v. Rosenkrantz, 150 Ga. 745 (105 S. E. 292), and Crider v. Harris, 181 Ga. 555 (182 S. E. 592), this was not such a final judgment as will support a direct bill of exceptions, as contemplated by the Code, § 6-701. Therefore the writ of error must be dismissed. Leave is granted to the plaintiff to treat as exceptions pendente lite the official copy of the bill of exceptions filed in the court below.

Writ of error dismissed, with direction.

MacIntyre, J., concurs.

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

Garman v. City of Atlanta, 191 S.E. 164, 55 Ga. App. 683, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 460 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

191 S.E. 164 (Garman v. City of Atlanta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

H. W. Brown Transportation Co. v. Edgeworth
84 S.E.2d 103 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Forbes
44 S.E.2d 692 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Loveless v. McCollum
5 S.E.2d 582 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)