LAMAS COMPANY, INC. v. Baldwin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

LAMAS COMPANY, INC. v. Baldwin

164 S.E.2d 236, 118 Ga. App. 437, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1421

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 10, 1968·No. 43761·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

Quillian, Judge.

Frank Baldwin, d/b/a Frank Baldwin Electric Company, filed suit and obtained a judgment against The Lamas Company, Inc. The appellant subsequently filed a motion to set aside the judgment on February 29, 1968. On March 26, 1968, the trial judge overruled the motion. The appellant filed a notice of appeal and enumerated the overruling of the motion as error. The record reveals that on March 8, 1968, the appellee had filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. There has been no order granting, overruling or otherwise disposing of the motion for new trial and the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Held:

An appeal brought while a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict are pending in the trial court is premature. Hayes v. State, 116 Ga. App. 260, 261 (157 SE2d 30); Hill v. General Rediscount Corp., 116 Ga. App. 459, 461 (157 SE2d 888). See Fulton v. Chattanooga Pub. Co., 98 Ga. App. 473 (105 SE2d 922); Wood v. Sheppard, 99 Ga. App. 537 (109 SE2d 69); State Bank of Leesburg v. Hatcher, 106 Ga. App. 735 (128 SE2d 339); Pazol v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Sandy Springs, 112 Ga. App. 161 (144 SE2d 117); Kurtz v. State, 115 Ga. App. 665 (1) (155 SE2d 735).

It should be noted that there was no order of the trial judge stating that the order overruling the motion to set aside the judgment should be subject to direct review while the other motions were still pending. Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1072, 1073 (Code Ann. § 6-701 (a) (2)).

Appeal dismissed.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

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

Quillian, Judge.

Frank Baldwin, d/b/a Frank Baldwin Electric Company, filed suit and obtained a judgment against The Lamas Company, Inc. The appellant subsequently filed a motion to set aside the judgment on February 29, 1968. On March 26, 1968, the trial judge overruled the motion. The appellant filed a notice of appeal and enumerated the overruling of the motion as error. The record reveals that on March 8, 1968, the appellee had filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. There has been no order granting, overruling or otherwise disposing of the motion for new trial and the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Held:

An appeal brought while a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict are pending in the trial court is premature. Hayes v. State, 116 Ga. App. 260, 261 (157 SE2d 30); Hill v. General Rediscount Corp., 116 Ga. App. 459, 461 (157 SE2d 888). See Fulton v. Chattanooga Pub. Co., 98 Ga. App. 473 (105 SE2d 922); Wood v. Sheppard, 99 Ga. App. 537 (109 SE2d 69); State Bank of Leesburg v. Hatcher, 106 Ga. App. 735 (128 SE2d 339); Pazol v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Sandy Springs, 112 Ga. App. 161 (144 SE2d 117); Kurtz v. State, 115 Ga. App. 665 (1) (155 SE2d 735).

It should be noted that there was no order of the trial judge stating that the order overruling the motion to set aside the judgment should be subject to direct review while the other motions were still pending. Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1072, 1073 (Code Ann. § 6-701 (a) (2)).

Appeal dismissed.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

LAMAS COMPANY, INC. v. Baldwin, 164 S.E.2d 236, 118 Ga. App. 437, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1421 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

164 S.E.2d 236 (LAMAS COMPANY, INC. v. Baldwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related