Rowe v. Johnson

76 S.E.2d 429, 88 Ga. App. 199, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 1041
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 22, 1953·No. 34353, 34354·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

76 S.E.2d 429 (Rowe v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Upshaw v. O'BRYANT
115 S.E.2d 591 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)