Murphy v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Georgia

Murphy v. Murphy

93 S.E. 89, 147 Ga. 175, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 107

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 11, 1917

DocketNo. 335

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 89 (Murphy v. Murphy) 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

Murphy v. Murphy, 93 S.E. 89, 147 Ga. 175, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 107 (Ga. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. A will was offered for probate in solemn form. A caveat was filed. A demurrer to the caveat was sustained. Direct exception to the order sustaining the demurrer was brought to this court, this being the only assignment of error. A motion is made to dismiss the bill of exceptions as being prematurely brought. Eeld, that the case is still pending in the court below, and on motion the writ of error is dismissed, it not falling within one of the exceptions provided by statute. Civil Code (1910), § 6138. See Johnson v. Merchants &c. Bank, 141 Ga. 721 (81 S. E. 873) ; Burkhalter v. Roach, 145 Ga. 834 (90 S. E. 52).

2. Counsel for the plaintiffs in error in their brief argue that the question is a doubtful one, and request, if it should be decided by this court that the case was prematurely brought up, that this court grant an order permitting the plaintiffs in error to file the official copy of the bill of exceptions, retained in the court below, as exceptions pendente lite. This request must be denied. See Harvey v. Bowles, 112 Ga. 421 (37 S. E. 364); Burkhalter v. Roach, supra.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hill, J.

1. A will was offered for probate in solemn form. A caveat was filed. A demurrer to the caveat was sustained. Direct exception to the order sustaining the demurrer was brought to this court, this being the only assignment of error. A motion is made to dismiss the bill of exceptions as being prematurely brought. Eeld, that the case is still pending in the court below, and on motion the writ of error is dismissed, it not falling within one of the exceptions provided by statute. Civil Code (1910), § 6138. See Johnson v. Merchants &c. Bank, 141 Ga. 721 (81 S. E. 873) ; Burkhalter v. Roach, 145 Ga. 834 (90 S. E. 52).

2. Counsel for the plaintiffs in error in their brief argue that the question is a doubtful one, and request, if it should be decided by this court that the case was prematurely brought up, that this court grant an order permitting the plaintiffs in error to file the official copy of the bill of exceptions, retained in the court below, as exceptions pendente lite. This request must be denied. See Harvey v. Bowles, 112 Ga. 421 (37 S. E. 364); Burkhalter v. Roach, supra.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 89, 147 Ga. 175, 1917 Ga. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-murphy-ga-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack