National Surety Corporation v. Hunt

Court of Appeals of Georgia

National Surety Corporation v. Hunt

123 S.E.2d 558, 105 Ga. App. 101, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 572

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 20, 1961

Docket39155

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 123 S.E.2d 558 (National Surety Corporation v. Hunt) 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

National Surety Corporation v. Hunt, 123 S.E.2d 558, 105 Ga. App. 101, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 572 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhaedt, Judge.

The original petition in this case was filed in Elbert Superior Court September 12, 1958, against three defendants. One defendant, Hunt, filed his general demurrer to the petition October 9, 1958, and another, Eaves, filed his general demurrer October 10, 1958. On November 18, 1960, Hunt filed a written renewal of his general demurrer to the petition, “as amended.” However, there was no amendment to the petition filed or allowed until June 26, 1961, when a material amendment was allowed and filed. On August 12, 1961, an order was entered sustaining the general demurrer of Hunt, and on the same date the general demurrer of Eaves was likewise sustained. Nothing in the record, or in the orders, indicates that the demurrers were renewed at any time after the allowance and filing of the amendment. “A demurrer to the original petition does not cover the petition after it has been materially amended [citation]. If the demurrer is still relied upon, it should be renewed or insisted upon after the amendment has been allowed.” (Emphasis supplied). General Acc. Fire &c. Corp. v. Way, 20 Ga. App. 106 (2) (92 SE 650). “A bill having been demurred to and an amendment made in regard to material matters, the original demurrer does not relate forward and cover both bill and amendment.” Powell v. Cheshire, 70 Ga. 357 (2b) (48 AR 572). “The fact that the judge in overruling the demurrers considered them as covering the amended petition is immaterial.” Satlof v. State of Georgia, 52 Ga. App. 208 (182 SE 864). (A fortiori, in the sustaining of a demurrer). And see Atlanta &c. R. Co. v. McDonald, 88 Ga. App. 515, 516 (76 SE2d 825); Leverett, Hall, Christopher, Georgia Procedure & Practice § 9-11. Failure to renew a demurrer after the petition is materially amended will be treated as an abandonment of the demurrer. Collins v. Louisville &c. R. Co., 92 Ga. App. 814, 816 (89 SE2d 908). (However, the renewal or re-insistence upon the demurrer may be done orally as well as in writing. Pollock v. City of Albany, 88 Ga. App. 737, 740, 77 SE2d 579). Thus, the sustaining of the general demurrers to the original petition did not dispose of or have the effect of dismissing the petition as amended here, *102 and there is no final judgment reviewable in this court upon the bill of exceptions. Code § 6-701^ as amended. “This court is without jurisdiction to entertain a bill of exceptions which fails to except to a final judgment.” Southern Ry. Co. v. Floyd County, 37 Ga. App. 689, 691 (141 SE 497); Willis v. Daniel, 39 Ga. App. 670 (148 SE 301).

Decided November 20, 1961 Rehearing denied December 12, 1961. I. A. Blanch, J. B. McGinty, for plaintiff in error. Williford & Grant, J. T. Sisk, contra.

Accordingly, the bill of exceptions must be, and it is hereby

Dismissed.

Carlisle, P. J., and Custer, J., concur.

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

Eberhaedt, Judge.

The original petition in this case was filed in Elbert Superior Court September 12, 1958, against three defendants. One defendant, Hunt, filed his general demurrer to the petition October 9, 1958, and another, Eaves, filed his general demurrer October 10, 1958. On November 18, 1960, Hunt filed a written renewal of his general demurrer to the petition, “as amended.” However, there was no amendment to the petition filed or allowed until June 26, 1961, when a material amendment was allowed and filed. On August 12, 1961, an order was entered sustaining the general demurrer of Hunt, and on the same date the general demurrer of Eaves was likewise sustained. Nothing in the record, or in the orders, indicates that the demurrers were renewed at any time after the allowance and filing of the amendment. “A demurrer to the original petition does not cover the petition after it has been materially amended [citation]. If the demurrer is still relied upon, it should be renewed or insisted upon after the amendment has been allowed.” (Emphasis supplied). General Acc. Fire &c. Corp. v. Way, 20 Ga. App. 106 (2) (92 SE 650). “A bill having been demurred to and an amendment made in regard to material matters, the original demurrer does not relate forward and cover both bill and amendment.” Powell v. Cheshire, 70 Ga. 357 (2b) (48 AR 572). “The fact that the judge in overruling the demurrers considered them as covering the amended petition is immaterial.” Satlof v. State of Georgia, 52 Ga. App. 208 (182 SE 864). (A fortiori, in the sustaining of a demurrer). And see Atlanta &c. R. Co. v. McDonald, 88 Ga. App. 515, 516 (76 SE2d 825); Leverett, Hall, Christopher, Georgia Procedure & Practice § 9-11. Failure to renew a demurrer after the petition is materially amended will be treated as an abandonment of the demurrer. Collins v. Louisville &c. R. Co., 92 Ga. App. 814, 816 (89 SE2d 908). (However, the renewal or re-insistence upon the demurrer may be done orally as well as in writing. Pollock v. City of Albany, 88 Ga. App. 737, 740, 77 SE2d 579). Thus, the sustaining of the general demurrers to the original petition did not dispose of or have the effect of dismissing the petition as amended here, *102 and there is no final judgment reviewable in this court upon the bill of exceptions. Code § 6-701^ as amended. “This court is without jurisdiction to entertain a bill of exceptions which fails to except to a final judgment.” Southern Ry. Co. v. Floyd County, 37 Ga. App. 689, 691 (141 SE 497); Willis v. Daniel, 39 Ga. App. 670 (148 SE 301).

Decided November 20, 1961 Rehearing denied December 12, 1961. I. A. Blanch, J. B. McGinty, for plaintiff in error. Williford & Grant, J. T. Sisk, contra.

Accordingly, the bill of exceptions must be, and it is hereby

Dismissed.

Carlisle, P. J., and Custer, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.E.2d 558, 105 Ga. App. 101, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-surety-corporation-v-hunt-gactapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack