Hicks v. Community Loan & Investment Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hicks v. Community Loan & Investment Co.

10 S.E.2d 226, 62 Ga. App. 909, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 470

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 31, 1940

Docket28160.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 10 S.E.2d 226 (Hicks v. Community Loan & Investment Co.) 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

Hicks v. Community Loan & Investment Co., 10 S.E.2d 226, 62 Ga. App. 909, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 470 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only assignments of error in the bill of exceptions are upon the exceptions pendente lite to the judgment sustaining the general demurrer and to the judgment excepted to pendente lite. There is no exception to any final judgment in the case, or to any ruling, order, decision, etc., resulting in the final termination thereof in the trial court. The assignment of error upon the judgment sustaining the general demurrer to the petition, which was also excepted to pendente lite, is an exception to a final judgment; but the bill of exceptions to this court was not sued out within the time provided by law for direct exception to that judgment. It is true that the bill of exceptions recites the final termination of the case, which resulted upon the dismissal by the attorney for the defendant of the answer and counter-claim, but there is no exception to or assignment of error in the bill of exceptions upon such final termination of the case in the trial *911 court. In Southern Railway Co. v. Floyd County, 37 Ga. App 689, 691 (141 S. E. 497), this court held: “A writ oí error can not be predicated upon exceptions pendente lite alone. We think the general rule is applicable, that, ‘In order to give this court jurisdiction of the case, the bill of exceptions must contain a general or a specific exception assigning error on the final judgment in the court below/ . . The fact that the record may disclose a final judgment in favor of the opposite party does not’change the rule.” See Empire Cotton Oil Co. v. Taylor, 152 Ga. 693 (111 S. E. 35); Bearden v. Longino, 181 Ga. 807 (184 S. E. 319); Rabhan v. Rabhan, 185 Ga. 355 (195 S. E. 193). Such a bill of exceptions must be dismissed. Blackwell v. State, 46 Ga. App. 830 (169 S. E. 507); Ramsey v. Mingledorff, 183 Ga. 701 (189 S. E. 521). It follows that the motion to dismiss the writ of error is well founded, and must be sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton and Felton, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The only assignments of error in the bill of exceptions are upon the exceptions pendente lite to the judgment sustaining the general demurrer and to the judgment excepted to pendente lite. There is no exception to any final judgment in the case, or to any ruling, order, decision, etc., resulting in the final termination thereof in the trial court. The assignment of error upon the judgment sustaining the general demurrer to the petition, which was also excepted to pendente lite, is an exception to a final judgment; but the bill of exceptions to this court was not sued out within the time provided by law for direct exception to that judgment. It is true that the bill of exceptions recites the final termination of the case, which resulted upon the dismissal by the attorney for the defendant of the answer and counter-claim, but there is no exception to or assignment of error in the bill of exceptions upon such final termination of the case in the trial *911 court. In Southern Railway Co. v. Floyd County, 37 Ga. App 689, 691 (141 S. E. 497), this court held: “A writ oí error can not be predicated upon exceptions pendente lite alone. We think the general rule is applicable, that, ‘In order to give this court jurisdiction of the case, the bill of exceptions must contain a general or a specific exception assigning error on the final judgment in the court below/ . . The fact that the record may disclose a final judgment in favor of the opposite party does not’change the rule.” See Empire Cotton Oil Co. v. Taylor, 152 Ga. 693 (111 S. E. 35); Bearden v. Longino, 181 Ga. 807 (184 S. E. 319); Rabhan v. Rabhan, 185 Ga. 355 (195 S. E. 193). Such a bill of exceptions must be dismissed. Blackwell v. State, 46 Ga. App. 830 (169 S. E. 507); Ramsey v. Mingledorff, 183 Ga. 701 (189 S. E. 521). It follows that the motion to dismiss the writ of error is well founded, and must be sustained.

Writ of error dismissed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton and Felton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E.2d 226, 62 Ga. App. 909, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-community-loan-investment-co-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack