Mitchell v. Butler

Supreme Court of Georgia

Mitchell v. Butler

161 S.E. 606, 173 Ga. 816, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 414

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 14, 1931

DocketNo. 8487

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 S.E. 606 (Mitchell v. Butler) 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

Mitchell v. Butler, 161 S.E. 606, 173 Ga. 816, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 414 (Ga. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. “Save as to cases specially provided for by law (such as exceptions to the grant or refusal of an injunction, or the appointment of or refusal to appoint a receiver), no case can be brought to this court by bill of exceptions, so long as the same is pending in the court below, unless the decision complained of would have been a final dis[817]*817position of the ease, had it been rendered as the excepting party claims that it should have been. Civil Code (1910), § 6138.” Baldwin v. Lowe, 129 Ga. 711 (59 S. E. 772).

No. 8487. November 14, 1931. Evans & Evans and M. L. Gross, for plaintiff in error. 8. P. New, contra.

2. “Striking an imperfect plea to the jurisdiction filed by the sole defendant, and rejecting an amendment thereto, is not a final judgment, and does not dispose of the ease; nor would it have done so had the amendment been allowed and the motion to strike been overruled.” Baldwin v. Lowe, supra. See Douglas v. Hardin, 163 Ga. 643 (136 S. E. 793) ; Lyndon v. Ga. Ry. & El. Co., 129 Ga. 353 (58 S. E. 1047) : Johnson v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 141 Ga. 721 (81 S. E. 873).

3. Applying the foregoing rulings to the facts of this case, the writ of error, on motion, is

Dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Beck, P. J., and Hines, J., who dissent.

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

Hill, J.

1. “Save as to cases specially provided for by law (such as exceptions to the grant or refusal of an injunction, or the appointment of or refusal to appoint a receiver), no case can be brought to this court by bill of exceptions, so long as the same is pending in the court below, unless the decision complained of would have been a final dis[817]*817position of the ease, had it been rendered as the excepting party claims that it should have been. Civil Code (1910), § 6138.” Baldwin v. Lowe, 129 Ga. 711 (59 S. E. 772).

No. 8487. November 14, 1931. Evans & Evans and M. L. Gross, for plaintiff in error. 8. P. New, contra.

2. “Striking an imperfect plea to the jurisdiction filed by the sole defendant, and rejecting an amendment thereto, is not a final judgment, and does not dispose of the ease; nor would it have done so had the amendment been allowed and the motion to strike been overruled.” Baldwin v. Lowe, supra. See Douglas v. Hardin, 163 Ga. 643 (136 S. E. 793) ; Lyndon v. Ga. Ry. & El. Co., 129 Ga. 353 (58 S. E. 1047) : Johnson v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 141 Ga. 721 (81 S. E. 873).

3. Applying the foregoing rulings to the facts of this case, the writ of error, on motion, is

Dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Beck, P. J., and Hines, J., who dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E. 606, 173 Ga. 816, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-butler-ga-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack