Norton v. Hamilton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Norton v. Hamilton

87 S.E.2d 442, 92 Ga. App. 2, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 503

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 22, 1955

Docket35607

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 87 S.E.2d 442 (Norton v. Hamilton) 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

Norton v. Hamilton, 87 S.E.2d 442, 92 Ga. App. 2, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 503 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Carlisle, J.

“Where, in ruling upon demurrers, the trial court allows time for the filing of an amendment, such court shall render a judgment on the sufficiency of the pleadings after the expiration of the time allowed for amendment which shall supersede the earlier judgment on the demurrers, and such earlier judgment or judgments shall not be subject to exception or review.” Weinstein v. Rothberg, 87 Ga. App. 94 (73 S. E. 2d 106); Sutton v. Wilson, 87 Ga. App. 398 (74 S. E. 2d 15); Sellers v. City of Summerville, 88 Ga. App. 109 (76 S. E. 2d 99); Aiken v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 88 Ga. App. 131 (76 S. E. 2d 141). And where, as here, the trial court entered a judgment on certain demurrers to the petition in which all the demurrers were overruled except one, and the trial court allowed time within which to amend the petition, and after the expiration of such time no fresh adjudication was made on the sufficiency of the petition, but the plaintiff appealed to this court on a direct bill of exceptions, assigning error on the judgment in which time was allowed for amendment—this court is without jurisdiction of the writ of error, and it must be and is

Dismissed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Carlisle, J.

“Where, in ruling upon demurrers, the trial court allows time for the filing of an amendment, such court shall render a judgment on the sufficiency of the pleadings after the expiration of the time allowed for amendment which shall supersede the earlier judgment on the demurrers, and such earlier judgment or judgments shall not be subject to exception or review.” Weinstein v. Rothberg, 87 Ga. App. 94 (73 S. E. 2d 106); Sutton v. Wilson, 87 Ga. App. 398 (74 S. E. 2d 15); Sellers v. City of Summerville, 88 Ga. App. 109 (76 S. E. 2d 99); Aiken v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 88 Ga. App. 131 (76 S. E. 2d 141). And where, as here, the trial court entered a judgment on certain demurrers to the petition in which all the demurrers were overruled except one, and the trial court allowed time within which to amend the petition, and after the expiration of such time no fresh adjudication was made on the sufficiency of the petition, but the plaintiff appealed to this court on a direct bill of exceptions, assigning error on the judgment in which time was allowed for amendment—this court is without jurisdiction of the writ of error, and it must be and is

Dismissed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E.2d 442, 92 Ga. App. 2, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-hamilton-gactapp-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack