Scarbrough v. Portress

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Scarbrough v. Portress

143 S.E.2d 555, 111 Ga. App. 875, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 1124

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 18, 1965

Docket41230

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 S.E.2d 555 (Scarbrough v. Portress) 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

Scarbrough v. Portress, 143 S.E.2d 555, 111 Ga. App. 875, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 1124 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A judgment of the superior court affirming an order of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation dismissing a plea in abatement filed before the board is not a final judgment and is not subject to appeal to this court by a bill of exceptions. Code Ann. § 6-701 and annotations, catchword “Abatement.” This is true even though the judgment affirmed a ruling dismissing the plea on the ground that the board did not have jurisdiction. Neither the dismissal by the board nor the affirmance of the dismissal by the court was a final disposition of the cause nor would it have been if the l’uling had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error.

The exceptions to the judgment of the superior court being predicated on a matter which is not appealable to this court, the bill of exceptions is

Dismissed.

Bell, P. J., Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur. Pauline E. Cousins, for plaintiff in error. L. D. Burns, Jr., contra.

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

Per Curiam.

A judgment of the superior court affirming an order of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation dismissing a plea in abatement filed before the board is not a final judgment and is not subject to appeal to this court by a bill of exceptions. Code Ann. § 6-701 and annotations, catchword “Abatement.” This is true even though the judgment affirmed a ruling dismissing the plea on the ground that the board did not have jurisdiction. Neither the dismissal by the board nor the affirmance of the dismissal by the court was a final disposition of the cause nor would it have been if the l’uling had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error.

The exceptions to the judgment of the superior court being predicated on a matter which is not appealable to this court, the bill of exceptions is

Dismissed.

Bell, P. J., Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur. Pauline E. Cousins, for plaintiff in error. L. D. Burns, Jr., contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E.2d 555, 111 Ga. App. 875, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 1124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarbrough-v-portress-gactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack