Mauldin v. Kendrick

Supreme Court of Georgia

Mauldin v. Kendrick

16 S.E.2d 555, 192 Ga. 741, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 550

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 12, 1941

Docket13875.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 16 S.E.2d 555 (Mauldin v. Kendrick) 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

Mauldin v. Kendrick, 16 S.E.2d 555, 192 Ga. 741, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 550 (Ga. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Grice, Justice.

To a petition as amended, praying for injunction and damages, a demurrer was interposed, on which the judge entered an order as follows: “After hearing arguments of counsel upon the within demurrer, the said demurrer is sustained in so far as it attacks the equitable relief sought, and overruled in so far as the suit for damages is concerned.” The plaintiff excepted. The only error assigned is on this ruling. Held, that the motion to dismiss the writ of error must be granted, the bill of exceptions having been prematurely sued out, the only ruling complained of not being one which finally disposed of the case. Code, § 6-701; Johnson v. Henry, 178 Ga. 542 (174 S. E. 140). In Roddenberry v. Patterson, 136 Ga. 187 (71 S. E. 138), relied on by the plaintiff, there was a directed verdict and final judgment based thereon, on which error was assigned.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur. *742 J. P. Knight and 8. B. McCall, for plaintiff. Edward Parrish, for defendant.

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

Grice, Justice.

To a petition as amended, praying for injunction and damages, a demurrer was interposed, on which the judge entered an order as follows: “After hearing arguments of counsel upon the within demurrer, the said demurrer is sustained in so far as it attacks the equitable relief sought, and overruled in so far as the suit for damages is concerned.” The plaintiff excepted. The only error assigned is on this ruling. Held, that the motion to dismiss the writ of error must be granted, the bill of exceptions having been prematurely sued out, the only ruling complained of not being one which finally disposed of the case. Code, § 6-701; Johnson v. Henry, 178 Ga. 542 (174 S. E. 140). In Roddenberry v. Patterson, 136 Ga. 187 (71 S. E. 138), relied on by the plaintiff, there was a directed verdict and final judgment based thereon, on which error was assigned.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur. *742 J. P. Knight and 8. B. McCall, for plaintiff. Edward Parrish, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.E.2d 555, 192 Ga. 741, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mauldin-v-kendrick-ga-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack