Hazen v. Isaac Fass Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hazen v. Isaac Fass Inc.

25 S.E.2d 118, 69 Ga. App. 232, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 50

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 9, 1943

Docket29817.

StatusPublished

This text of 25 S.E.2d 118 (Hazen v. Isaac Fass Inc.) 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

Hazen v. Isaac Fass Inc., 25 S.E.2d 118, 69 Ga. App. 232, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 50 (Ga. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinions

Felton, J.

1, '“If exception is taken to a final judgment as being erroneous in itself, the assignment of error should specifically set forth the error or errors in it which are complained of.” Lyndon v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co., 129 Ga. 353 (2) (58 S. E. 1047).

2. A general exception to a final judgment will suffice to give this court jurisdiction of the case where an antecedent ruling, complained of as erroneous and made the subject of exceptions, entered into and affected the final result of the case. Lyndon v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co., supra.

3. An assignment of error on dismissal of a motion for new trial for want of prosecution, as “contrary to law,” is insufficient to give this court jurisdiction to adjudicate assignments of error on exceptions pendente lite, alleged to have affected the verdict; for the reason that the alleged interlocutory error did not enter into or affect the dismissal of the motion for new trial. Rabhan v. Rabhan, 185 Ga. 355 (195 S. E. 193); Petty v. Bryant, 188 Ga. 102 (2 S. E. 2d, 910); Hennessee v. Jennings, 48 Ga. App. 188 (172 S. E. 583) and cit.; Code, §§ 6-801, 6-1607. This and similar cases are to be distinguished from those where the overruling of a motion for new trial is excepted to and the motion contains proper specific grounds of exception, and those where a demurrer which sets forth particular grounds is overruled.

4. Since there is no valid assignment of error in this case on the dismissal of the motion for new trial, this court is without jurisdiction to pass on the exceptions pendente lite to interlocutory rulings alleged to have affected the verdict and judgment but not the judgment of dismissal.

Writ of error dismissed.

Sutton, J., concurs. Stephens, P. J., dissents. *233 Carlisle Colb, W. G. Cornett, for plaintiffs in error. Deupree Eunnicutt, Deupree Eunnicutt Jr., J. T. MiddlebrooTcs, contra.

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

Felton, J.

1, '“If exception is taken to a final judgment as being erroneous in itself, the assignment of error should specifically set forth the error or errors in it which are complained of.” Lyndon v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co., 129 Ga. 353 (2) (58 S. E. 1047).

2. A general exception to a final judgment will suffice to give this court jurisdiction of the case where an antecedent ruling, complained of as erroneous and made the subject of exceptions, entered into and affected the final result of the case. Lyndon v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co., supra.

3. An assignment of error on dismissal of a motion for new trial for want of prosecution, as “contrary to law,” is insufficient to give this court jurisdiction to adjudicate assignments of error on exceptions pendente lite, alleged to have affected the verdict; for the reason that the alleged interlocutory error did not enter into or affect the dismissal of the motion for new trial. Rabhan v. Rabhan, 185 Ga. 355 (195 S. E. 193); Petty v. Bryant, 188 Ga. 102 (2 S. E. 2d, 910); Hennessee v. Jennings, 48 Ga. App. 188 (172 S. E. 583) and cit.; Code, §§ 6-801, 6-1607. This and similar cases are to be distinguished from those where the overruling of a motion for new trial is excepted to and the motion contains proper specific grounds of exception, and those where a demurrer which sets forth particular grounds is overruled.

4. Since there is no valid assignment of error in this case on the dismissal of the motion for new trial, this court is without jurisdiction to pass on the exceptions pendente lite to interlocutory rulings alleged to have affected the verdict and judgment but not the judgment of dismissal.

Writ of error dismissed.

Sutton, J., concurs. Stephens, P. J., dissents. *233 Carlisle Colb, W. G. Cornett, for plaintiffs in error. Deupree Eunnicutt, Deupree Eunnicutt Jr., J. T. MiddlebrooTcs, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 S.E.2d 118, 69 Ga. App. 232, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazen-v-isaac-fass-inc-gactapp-1943.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack