Johnson v. Holmes

Supreme Court of Georgia

Johnson v. Holmes

103 S.E. 157, 150 Ga. 195, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 105

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 13, 1920

DocketNo. 1681

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 103 S.E. 157 (Johnson v. Holmes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Holmes, 103 S.E. 157, 150 Ga. 195, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 105 (Ga. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. Where suit was brought against one to the September term of court, and thereafter in January an intervention was filed by one asking to be made a party to the case, and where to this intervention general and special demurrers were filed, which were both overruled by the court, and to that judgment the plaintiff in error excepted and brought the case to the Supreme Court by direct bill of exceptions, such judgment was not a final disposition of the cause, or final as to some material party thereto; and therefore the writ of error will, on motion, be dismissed as being prematurely brought to this court. Ray v. Anderson, 117 Ga. 136 (43 S. E. 408), Wikle v. Jones, 131 Ga. 37 (61 S. E. 1124); Civil Code (1910), § 6138. Walker v. Walker, 147 Ga. 614 (95 S. E. 10).

2. Leave is granted to the plaintiff in error to file, as exceptions pendente lite, the official copy of the bill of exceptions retained in the office of the clerk of the trial court.

Writ of error dismissed, with direction.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson and Gilbert, JJ., dissenting as to the ruling in the second headnote, citing Brannon v. State, 147 Ga. 499 (94 S. E. 759).

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

Hill, J.

1. Where suit was brought against one to the September term of court, and thereafter in January an intervention was filed by one asking to be made a party to the case, and where to this intervention general and special demurrers were filed, which were both overruled by the court, and to that judgment the plaintiff in error excepted and brought the case to the Supreme Court by direct bill of exceptions, such judgment was not a final disposition of the cause, or final as to some material party thereto; and therefore the writ of error will, on motion, be dismissed as being prematurely brought to this court. Ray v. Anderson, 117 Ga. 136 (43 S. E. 408), Wikle v. Jones, 131 Ga. 37 (61 S. E. 1124); Civil Code (1910), § 6138. Walker v. Walker, 147 Ga. 614 (95 S. E. 10).

2. Leave is granted to the plaintiff in error to file, as exceptions pendente lite, the official copy of the bill of exceptions retained in the office of the clerk of the trial court.

Writ of error dismissed, with direction.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson and Gilbert, JJ., dissenting as to the ruling in the second headnote, citing Brannon v. State, 147 Ga. 499 (94 S. E. 759).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 157, 150 Ga. 195, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-holmes-ga-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack