Grier v. Grier

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Grier v. Grier

111 S.E.2d 256, 100 Ga. App. 322, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 609

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 17, 1959

Docket37894

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 111 S.E.2d 256 (Grier v. Grier) 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

Grier v. Grier, 111 S.E.2d 256, 100 Ga. App. 322, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 609 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, Judge.

The only judgment on which error is assigned in this bill of exceptions is one overruling and striking a plea of each of the defendants contending that the action should abate for the reason that there has been no legal service upon either of the defendants, and that the entries of service show on their face that the purported service upon each of the defendants is null and void.

Code (Ann.) § 81-201 provides: “No petition shall ábate for lack of service until so ordered by the court in which it was filed.” There is no order dismissing this petition, and, had the judgment been rendered as contended by the plaintiffs in error, the effect would not have been to dismiss the peti[323]*323tion, but merely to hold that the service shown upon the record was insufficient. This is not such a final judgment, under Code § 6-701 as amended, as may, alone be the foundation for an appeal, since the plea is not a plea to the jurisdiction or any other judgment which under this section could be the foundation of an appeal. Accordingly, the motions to dismiss the bill of exceptions on the ground that it was prematurely sued out are good. As to the merits of the plea, however, see Scott v. Scott, 192 Ga. 370 (15 S. E. 2d 416). Bell v. Stevens, 100 Ga. App. 281.

Decided September 17, 1959 Rehearing deniedOctober 5, 1959. Frank B. Stow, Robert E. Andrews, for plaintiffs in error. Wheeler, Robinson, Norton <& Thompson, Emory F. Robinson, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

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

Townsend, Judge.

The only judgment on which error is assigned in this bill of exceptions is one overruling and striking a plea of each of the defendants contending that the action should abate for the reason that there has been no legal service upon either of the defendants, and that the entries of service show on their face that the purported service upon each of the defendants is null and void.

Code (Ann.) § 81-201 provides: “No petition shall ábate for lack of service until so ordered by the court in which it was filed.” There is no order dismissing this petition, and, had the judgment been rendered as contended by the plaintiffs in error, the effect would not have been to dismiss the peti[323]*323tion, but merely to hold that the service shown upon the record was insufficient. This is not such a final judgment, under Code § 6-701 as amended, as may, alone be the foundation for an appeal, since the plea is not a plea to the jurisdiction or any other judgment which under this section could be the foundation of an appeal. Accordingly, the motions to dismiss the bill of exceptions on the ground that it was prematurely sued out are good. As to the merits of the plea, however, see Scott v. Scott, 192 Ga. 370 (15 S. E. 2d 416). Bell v. Stevens, 100 Ga. App. 281.

Decided September 17, 1959 Rehearing deniedOctober 5, 1959. Frank B. Stow, Robert E. Andrews, for plaintiffs in error. Wheeler, Robinson, Norton <& Thompson, Emory F. Robinson, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E.2d 256, 100 Ga. App. 322, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grier-v-grier-gactapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack