Pope v. Pope

Supreme Court of Georgia

Pope v. Pope

60 S.E.2d 376, 207 Ga. 240, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 421

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 12, 1950

DocketNo. 17178

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 60 S.E.2d 376 (Pope v. Pope) 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

Pope v. Pope, 60 S.E.2d 376, 207 Ga. 240, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 421 (Ga. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Hawkins, Justice.

1. The order and judgment of the trial court, refusing to dismiss the interventions and to declare the intervenors forever barred from asserting any interest in the property involved in the litigation, was not a final disposition of the cause, and would not have been final as to any of the plaintiffs in error if it had been rendered as contended by them. In either event, the main case would, as to them, still be pending in the trial court. Therefore, the writ of error must be dismissed as being prematurely brought to this court. Code (Ann. Supp.), § 6-701; Johnson v. Holmes, 150 Ga. 195 (103 S. E. 157); Jackson v. Fite, 165 Ga. 382 (140 S. E. 754); Ray v. Anderson, 117 Ga. 136 (43 S. E. 408); Wikle v. Jones, 131 Ga. 37 (61 S. E. 1124); Walker v. Walker, 147 Ga. 614 (95 S. E. 10); Edwards v. Bynum, 48 Ga. App. 149 (172 S. E. 117); Bagley v. Bagley, 194 Ga. 154 (20 S. E. 2d, 760).

2. Leave is granted to the plaintiffs in error to file, as exceptions pendente lite, the official copy of the bill of exceptions retained in the office of the clerk of the trial court. Johnson v. Holmes, 150 Ga. 195 (2) (supra) ; Taylor v. Taylor, 186 Ga. 667 (2) (198 S. E. 678).

Writ of error dismissed, with direction.

All the Justices concur. C. C. Crockett and W. W. Larsen, for plaintiffs. W. Wright Abbot, Nelson & Nelson, and Lester F. Watson, for defendants.

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

Hawkins, Justice.

1. The order and judgment of the trial court, refusing to dismiss the interventions and to declare the intervenors forever barred from asserting any interest in the property involved in the litigation, was not a final disposition of the cause, and would not have been final as to any of the plaintiffs in error if it had been rendered as contended by them. In either event, the main case would, as to them, still be pending in the trial court. Therefore, the writ of error must be dismissed as being prematurely brought to this court. Code (Ann. Supp.), § 6-701; Johnson v. Holmes, 150 Ga. 195 (103 S. E. 157); Jackson v. Fite, 165 Ga. 382 (140 S. E. 754); Ray v. Anderson, 117 Ga. 136 (43 S. E. 408); Wikle v. Jones, 131 Ga. 37 (61 S. E. 1124); Walker v. Walker, 147 Ga. 614 (95 S. E. 10); Edwards v. Bynum, 48 Ga. App. 149 (172 S. E. 117); Bagley v. Bagley, 194 Ga. 154 (20 S. E. 2d, 760).

2. Leave is granted to the plaintiffs in error to file, as exceptions pendente lite, the official copy of the bill of exceptions retained in the office of the clerk of the trial court. Johnson v. Holmes, 150 Ga. 195 (2) (supra) ; Taylor v. Taylor, 186 Ga. 667 (2) (198 S. E. 678).

Writ of error dismissed, with direction.

All the Justices concur. C. C. Crockett and W. W. Larsen, for plaintiffs. W. Wright Abbot, Nelson & Nelson, and Lester F. Watson, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.E.2d 376, 207 Ga. 240, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pope-v-pope-ga-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack