Garman v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Garman v. City of Atlanta

191 S.E. 164, 55 Ga. App. 683, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 460

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1937

Docket26036

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 191 S.E. 164 (Garman v. City of Atlanta) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E. 164, 55 Ga. App. 683, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garman-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1937.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack