Goode v. Hays

Supreme Court of Georgia

Goode v. Hays

89 S.E. 836, 145 Ga. 805, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 487

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 12, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 836 (Goode v. Hays) 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

Goode v. Hays, 89 S.E. 836, 145 Ga. 805, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 487 (Ga. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

In an action for accounting and final settlement before the court of ordinary, the defendant in response to a rule nisi filed an answer. The plaintiffs filed a demurrer to the answer. The court of ordinary, without passing upon the demurrer, heard the ease on its merits and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. An appeal was entered to the superior court, and at the trial the judge overruled the demurrer to the defendant’s answer. The plaintiffs brought the case to the Supreme Court by direct bill of exceptions in which the only assignment of error was upon the ruling above stated. Held, that, there being no assignment of error upon a final judgment of the trial court, the writ of error must be dismissed. Ellington v. Automobile Credit Sales Co., 145 Ga. 53 (88 S. E. 586).

Writ of error dismissed.

By five Justices, all concurring.

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

Atkinson, J.

In an action for accounting and final settlement before the court of ordinary, the defendant in response to a rule nisi filed an answer. The plaintiffs filed a demurrer to the answer. The court of ordinary, without passing upon the demurrer, heard the ease on its merits and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. An appeal was entered to the superior court, and at the trial the judge overruled the demurrer to the defendant’s answer. The plaintiffs brought the case to the Supreme Court by direct bill of exceptions in which the only assignment of error was upon the ruling above stated. Held, that, there being no assignment of error upon a final judgment of the trial court, the writ of error must be dismissed. Ellington v. Automobile Credit Sales Co., 145 Ga. 53 (88 S. E. 586).

Writ of error dismissed.

By five Justices, all concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 836, 145 Ga. 805, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goode-v-hays-ga-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack