Newton v. Roberts

135 S.E. 505, 163 Ga. 135, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 38
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 13, 1926
DocketNo. 5265
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 135 S.E. 505 (Newton v. Roberts) 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
Newton v. Roberts, 135 S.E. 505, 163 Ga. 135, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 38 (Ga. 1926).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

No cause shall be carried to the Supreme Court upon any bill of exceptions, so long as the same is pending in the court below, unless the decision or judgment complained of, if it had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error, would have been a final disposition of the cause, or final as to some material party thereto. Civil Code (1910), § 6138.

(а) Where a defendant files a general demurrer to a petition, a judgment overruling the demurrer is a final determination of the case as to him; and accordingly, under application of the provisions of the foregoing section of the code, such judgment would be a disposition of the case that would authorize the defendant to assign error thereon in a direct bill of exceptions. Central Railroad &c. Co. v. Denson, 83 Ca. 266 (2) (98 S. E. 788) ; Ramey v. O’Byrne, 121 Ca. 516 (3) (49 S. E. 595) ; Ray v. Hicks, 146 Ca. 685 (92 S. E. 48) ; Armor v. Stubbs, 150 Ga. 520 (104 S. E. 500).

(б) The facts that after overruling the demurrer the case proceeded to trial and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and that the defendant made a motion for new trial, would not prevent the defendant, acting within the time prescribed by law for filing a bill of exceptions to sucli judgment overruling the demurrer, from suing out his direct bill of exceptions assigning error on that judgment while the motion for new trial was pending in the trial court.

(e) The ruling in this case does not conflict with the decisions in the cases of Duke v. Story, 113 Ga. 112 (38 S. E. 337), Kelly & Jones Co. v. Moore, 125 Ga. 382 (54 S. E. 118), and Duncan v. Duncan, 145 Ga. 424 (89 S. E. 486), which did not involve exceptions to the overruling of general demurrers.

(d) A different ruling will not be required by the decision in the case of Durrencee v. Waters, 140 Ga. 762 (79 S. E. 841), in which the defendant excepted to a judgment overruling a demurrer after he had caused to be certified and filed exceptions pendente lite to the judgment. In that case this court held: “The losing party to a judgment on general demurrer is given the option to sue out a direet bill of exceptions assigning error on the judgment, or to have certified and filed exceptions pendente lite. If the latter course be followed, the- ruling on demurrer [136]*136becomes a pendente lite ruling which is reviewable only after the termination of the case, on exceptions taken to the final judgment rendered therein.” The ruling there made will not be extended beyond the facts to which it refers.

No. 5265. November 13, 1926. Dean & Wright, for plaintiff in error. A. 0. Wheeler and B. P. Gaülard Jr., contra. All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Woodside v. City of Atlanta
103 S.E.2d 108 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1958)
Shirley v. State
68 S.E.2d 597 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1952)
Cordele Sash, Door & Lumber Co. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
66 S.E.2d 767 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Crews v. Crews
61 S.E.2d 144 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Southeastern Stages Inc. v. Abdella
48 S.E.2d 835 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Story v. City of MacOn
45 S.E.2d 196 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Crumley v. Hall
43 S.E.2d 646 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Smith v. Barksdale
35 S.E.2d 149 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Newton v. Newton
27 S.E.2d 31 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Verner v. Verner
24 S.E.2d 666 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Sterchi Brothers Stores Inc. v. Clark
22 S.E.2d 740 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Womack v. Williford
22 S.E.2d 510 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Darden v. Roberts
19 S.E.2d 270 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Beavers v. Lesueur
12 S.E.2d 583 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Atlantic Mutual Fire Insurance v. McKenzie
11 S.E.2d 72 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Rivers v. Key
7 S.E.2d 732 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Rabhan v. Rabhan
195 S.E. 193 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Grahl v. Dorsey
193 S.E. 590 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Gilbert v. Tippens, superintendent of banks
188 S.E. 699 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Bearden v. Longino
184 S.E. 319 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 S.E. 505, 163 Ga. 135, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-v-roberts-ga-1926.