Hope v. Hudgins

107 S.E.2d 252, 98 Ga. App. 856, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 998
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 21, 1959
Docket37513
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 107 S.E.2d 252 (Hope v. Hudgins) 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
Hope v. Hudgins, 107 S.E.2d 252, 98 Ga. App. 856, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 998 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959).

Opinion

Gardner, Presiding Judge.

George M. Hope, Jr., brought suit against the following defendants: The Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Company and Maurice S. Hudgins, d/b/a Tuxedo Supermarkets.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss because the bill of exceptions does not contain any assignment of error upon a final judgment in the case, as is required under Code (Ann.) § 6-701, since a direct appeal from the order overruling the general demurrer of the plaintiff to- the motion of the defendants to open the default judgment is not a final judgment.

In American Stove Co. v. Belcher, 86 Ga. App. 203 (1) (71 S. E. 2d 108) this court said: “A judgment granting or refusing to grant a motion to1 open a default is not a final judgment”. In Denmark v. Denmark, 83 Ga. App. 532 (64 S. E. 2d 201) this court said: “Where a demurrer to a motion to open a default is overruled, a direct bill of exceptions to the overruling of such demurrer, which does not assign error on a final judgment, is prematurely brought, and this court is without jurisdiction to entertain it. Ryles v. Moore, 191 Ga. 661 (13 S. E. 2d 672), and cases cited.” See also Ethridge v. Quality Hatchery, Inc., 98 Ga. App. 164 (105 S. E. 2d 402) and Duncan v. Bradshaw, 98 Ga. App. 178 (105 S. E. 2d 385).

*857 Decided January 21, 1959. Nick Long, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, Hurt, Gaines, Baird, Peek & Peabody, contra.

When the provisions of Code (Ann.) § 6-701 are not complied with, as is shown by the record of this case, it follows that the bill of exceptions was prematurely brought since the record shows that the original action is still pending in the trial court.

Writ of error dismissed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re Tribble
382 P.2d 237 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1963)
Rueda v. Galvez
382 P.2d 239 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1963)
Harry v. SCENIC HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
127 S.E.2d 898 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 S.E.2d 252, 98 Ga. App. 856, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hope-v-hudgins-gactapp-1959.