Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Gillon v. Johns

Gillon v. Johns

125 S.E.2d 70, 105 Ga. App. 599, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 989
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 14, 1962
Docket39396
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 125 S.E.2d 70 (Gillon v. Johns) 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
Gillon v. Johns, 125 S.E.2d 70, 105 Ga. App. 599, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 989 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962).

Opinion

Ererhardt, Judge.

While the overruling of the general demurrer may have been error when that order was made (Curl *600 v. Cherry, 105 Ga. App. 239, 124 SE2d 289), the amendment has placed the matter in a different posture.

The filing and certifying of the bill of exceptions to -the overruling of the demurrer did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to hear or conduct further proceedings in the cause, including the considering and allowing of an amendment to the petition. Wood v. Delta Ins. Co., 101 Ga. App. 720 (2) (114 SE2d 883); Ware v. Martin, 208 Ga. 330 (3) (66 SE2d 737).

Consequently, since the petition has now been amended and the order complained of is not to an overruling of a demurrer to the petition as amended, there is no final judgment with which this court may now deal. National Surety Corp. v. Hunt, 106 Ga. App. 101 (123 SE2d 558). The ruling excepted to in the bill of exceptions, not going to the petition as amended, does not reach the merits and can not become the “law of the case.” Rather, the question simply becomes moot and a reversal would not benefit the plaintiff in error. Mooney v. Mooney, 200 Ga. 395 (4) (37 SE2d 195).

Since the assignment of error in the bill of exceptions was meritorious and, but for the belated amendment to the petition, would probably have resulted in a reversal, and since the question raised became moot as a result of this action on the part of defendant in error after the filing and certifying of the bill of exceptions (either reason being sufficient), the bill of exceptions is dismissed with the costs of appeal assessed against the defendant in error. Baird v. City of Atlanta, 131 Ga. 451 (2) (62 SE525).

Dismissed.

Carlisle, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.

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

Related

COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Tiller
157 S.E.2d 57 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
City Stores Company v. Henderson
156 S.E.2d 818 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Griffith v. Morgan
154 S.E.2d 822 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Davis House, Inc. v. Mink
154 S.E.2d 661 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Herrin v. Spikes
144 S.E.2d 920 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Brown v. Welsch
136 S.E.2d 535 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Studdard v. Evans
135 S.E.2d 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Hutcheson
131 S.E.2d 863 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Continental Casualty Co. v. Bump
128 S.E.2d 525 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 S.E.2d 70, 105 Ga. App. 599, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gillon-v-johns-gactapp-1962.