Smith v. Board of Education

143 S.E. 578, 166 Ga. 535, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 350
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 13, 1928
DocketNos. 6541, 6554
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 143 S.E. 578 (Smith v. Board of Education) 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
Smith v. Board of Education, 143 S.E. 578, 166 Ga. 535, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 350 (Ga. 1928).

Opinion

Hines, J.

This case arose under the land-registration act. It was referred to an examiner or auditor, who filed with the clerk of the court his conclusions of law and fact. Smith filed exceptions to certain of the auditor’s conclusions of law and of fact. The judge approved the ex[536]*536ceptions to the findings of fact, but reserved his decision upon the exceptions to the conclusions of law. The exceptions to the auditor’s findings of fact were submitted to a jury, which sustained these findings of fact. Smith made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted. The respondent in th'e motion filed a cross-bill of exceptions. Smith did not except to any judgment upon his exceptions to the auditor’s conclusions of law, or to a final judgment in the case. Held:

Nos. 6541, 6554. June 13, 1928. M. B. Súbanles, for plaintiff in error in main bill of exceptions. George A. H. Harris, contra.

1. The judgment overruling the motion for new trial was not a final judgment to which a writ of error will lie to this court; it not appearing that any judgment was rendered by the court upon the exceptions to the auditor’s findings of law, and there being no exception to any judgment rendered in favor of the applicant for registration. Huson v. Bank of Covington, 158 Ga. 434 (123 S. E. 742).

2. The losing party in the motion for new trial, to set aside a verdict sustaining the auditor’s findings of fact, should have excepted pendente lite to the judgment refusing a new trial, upon which error could be assigned in a bill of exceptions tendered after the final disposition of the case, and assigning error upon the final judgment therein. Whitton v. Barrow, 159 Ga. 57 (124 S. E. 874). The ease differs from Alred v. Alred, 164 Ga. 186 (137 S. E. 823), in which we held that a judgment overruling a motion for new trial, after verdict, is a final judgment on which a writ of error lies, although no judgment on the verdict has been entered; the principle therein announced being applicable where the verdict is a general one and has the effect of finally disposing of the case.

3. Leave is granted to treat the official copies of the bills of exceptions as exceptions pendente lite.

Writs of error dismissed, icillh direction.

All lite Justices concur.

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

Related

Spell v. State
170 S.E.2d 701 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Albany Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Henderson
31 S.E.2d 20 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Lingo v. Rich
151 S.E. 387 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 S.E. 578, 166 Ga. 535, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-board-of-education-ga-1928.