Maxwell v. Zeigler-Frankel Mfg. Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Maxwell v. Zeigler-Frankel Mfg. Co.

108 S.E. 250, 27 Ga. App. 348, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 888

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 3, 1921

Docket12465-12471

StatusPublished

This text of 108 S.E. 250 (Maxwell v. Zeigler-Frankel Mfg. Co.) 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

Maxwell v. Zeigler-Frankel Mfg. Co., 108 S.E. 250, 27 Ga. App. 348, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

In these cases (seven separate actions) the judgments excepted to were the sustaining of demurrers of the plaintiffs to pleas filed by the defendant. These were not final judgments; and on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error the bills of exceptions are dismissed as having been prematurely brought, but leave is granted to the plain[349]*349tiff in error to treat as exceptions pendente lite the official copies of the bills of exceptions retained in the office of the clerk of the lower court.

Decided August 3, 1921.

Complaint; from city court of Carrollton — -Judge Hood. April 1, 1921.

Suits against Maxwell were, separately brought by ZeiglerFrankel Manufacturing Company, All Star Manufacturing Company, Trotty Trunk and Bag Company, Queen Costume Company, Greenbaum & Sons, Wilson & Company, and Eleanor Dress Company. Demurrer to the defendant’s answer in.each case was sustained, and he excepted. There was no exception to a final judgment.

James Beall, for plaintiff in error. Boykin & Boykin, contra.

Writs of error dismissed, with direction.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Hill, J.

In these cases (seven separate actions) the judgments excepted to were the sustaining of demurrers of the plaintiffs to pleas filed by the defendant. These were not final judgments; and on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error the bills of exceptions are dismissed as having been prematurely brought, but leave is granted to the plain[349]*349tiff in error to treat as exceptions pendente lite the official copies of the bills of exceptions retained in the office of the clerk of the lower court.

Decided August 3, 1921.

Complaint; from city court of Carrollton — -Judge Hood. April 1, 1921.

Suits against Maxwell were, separately brought by ZeiglerFrankel Manufacturing Company, All Star Manufacturing Company, Trotty Trunk and Bag Company, Queen Costume Company, Greenbaum & Sons, Wilson & Company, and Eleanor Dress Company. Demurrer to the defendant’s answer in.each case was sustained, and he excepted. There was no exception to a final judgment.

James Beall, for plaintiff in error. Boykin & Boykin, contra.

Writs of error dismissed, with direction.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 250, 27 Ga. App. 348, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-zeigler-frankel-mfg-co-gactapp-1921.