Rowe v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rowe v. Johnson

76 S.E.2d 429, 88 Ga. App. 199, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 1041

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 22, 1953

Docket34353, 34354

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 S.E.2d 429 (Rowe v. Johnson) 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

Rowe v. Johnson, 76 S.E.2d 429, 88 Ga. App. 199, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 1041 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Worrill, J.

1. An order sustaining certain special demurrers to the peti tion and limiting the action to one arising ex contractu, which left the suit pending in the lower court, was not a final judgment from which a direct bill of exceptions would lie. Harrell v. Southern Ry. Co., 13 Ga. App. 409 (79 S. E. 240); Woodland v. Woodland, 33 Ga. App. 167 (125 S. E. 732); Joyner v. Hamilton, 79 Ga. App. 106 (53 S. E. 2d 133); Fickett v. Fuller, 171 Ga. 190 (154 S. E. 784). The main bill of exceptions was, therefore prematurely sued out, and must be dismissed.

2. Where the cross-bill of exceptions was not tendered within twenty days from the date of the order complained of, even though such order would have been a final order had it been rendered as contended by the plaintiff in error in such cross-bill, but was tendered within the time allowed by law for cross-bills of exceptions, it came too late to be treated as a main bill of exceptions, and since the main bill of exceptions has been dismissed, the cross-bill must likewise be dismissed. Perdue v. Anderson, 137 Ga. 512 (2) (73 S. E. 1050).

Main bill and cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Worrill, J.

1. An order sustaining certain special demurrers to the peti tion and limiting the action to one arising ex contractu, which left the suit pending in the lower court, was not a final judgment from which a direct bill of exceptions would lie. Harrell v. Southern Ry. Co., 13 Ga. App. 409 (79 S. E. 240); Woodland v. Woodland, 33 Ga. App. 167 (125 S. E. 732); Joyner v. Hamilton, 79 Ga. App. 106 (53 S. E. 2d 133); Fickett v. Fuller, 171 Ga. 190 (154 S. E. 784). The main bill of exceptions was, therefore prematurely sued out, and must be dismissed.

2. Where the cross-bill of exceptions was not tendered within twenty days from the date of the order complained of, even though such order would have been a final order had it been rendered as contended by the plaintiff in error in such cross-bill, but was tendered within the time allowed by law for cross-bills of exceptions, it came too late to be treated as a main bill of exceptions, and since the main bill of exceptions has been dismissed, the cross-bill must likewise be dismissed. Perdue v. Anderson, 137 Ga. 512 (2) (73 S. E. 1050).

Main bill and cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E.2d 429, 88 Ga. App. 199, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 1041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-johnson-gactapp-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack