Goodrich v. Mills

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Goodrich v. Mills

112 S.E. 655, 28 Ga. App. 626, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 733

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 13, 1922

Docket13462

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 S.E. 655 (Goodrich v. Mills) 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

Goodrich v. Mills, 112 S.E. 655, 28 Ga. App. 626, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 733 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The finding against the defendant’s special plea which set up that the suit should be abated on the ground that it was brought against him individually, when it should have been brought against the partnership of which he was a member, is not a final judgment within the meaning of section 6138 of the Civil Code of 1910. This is true although the necessary effect of a judgment sustaining the plea would have been to entitle the defendant to a judgment dismissing the action as a matter of course. English v. Rosenkrantz, 150 Ga. 745 (105 S. E. 292), and authorities cited.

Writ of error dismissed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Complaint; from city court of Sandersville — Judge Goodwin. January 24, 1922.

A. R. Wright, for plaintiff in error. J. Hines Wood, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The finding against the defendant’s special plea which set up that the suit should be abated on the ground that it was brought against him individually, when it should have been brought against the partnership of which he was a member, is not a final judgment within the meaning of section 6138 of the Civil Code of 1910. This is true although the necessary effect of a judgment sustaining the plea would have been to entitle the defendant to a judgment dismissing the action as a matter of course. English v. Rosenkrantz, 150 Ga. 745 (105 S. E. 292), and authorities cited.

Writ of error dismissed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Complaint; from city court of Sandersville — Judge Goodwin. January 24, 1922.

A. R. Wright, for plaintiff in error. J. Hines Wood, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 655, 28 Ga. App. 626, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodrich-v-mills-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack