Hill v. First National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hill v. First National Bank

130 S.E. 378, 34 Ga. App. 484, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 331

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 10, 1925

Docket15637

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.E. 378 (Hill v. First National Bank) 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

Hill v. First National Bank, 130 S.E. 378, 34 Ga. App. 484, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 331 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The foregoing headnote is a copy of the headnote in an opinion of the Supreme Court in answer to questions certified to it by this .court. For the full opinion of the Supreme Court, including the certified questions, see 160 Ga. 883 (129 S. E. 285). Under the ruling of the Supreme Court the judge of the superior court had jurisdiction, on March 4, 1922, to dismiss the motion for a new trial. The motion having been dismissed, and this judgment not having been excepted to, it became the law of the case, and the judge did not err in his order of November 10, 1923, in which the then-pending motion for a new trial was “overruled and denied and dismissed.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The foregoing headnote is a copy of the headnote in an opinion of the Supreme Court in answer to questions certified to it by this .court. For the full opinion of the Supreme Court, including the certified questions, see 160 Ga. 883 (129 S. E. 285). Under the ruling of the Supreme Court the judge of the superior court had jurisdiction, on March 4, 1922, to dismiss the motion for a new trial. The motion having been dismissed, and this judgment not having been excepted to, it became the law of the case, and the judge did not err in his order of November 10, 1923, in which the then-pending motion for a new trial was “overruled and denied and dismissed.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 378, 34 Ga. App. 484, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-first-national-bank-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack