Smith v. Leverette

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. Leverette

89 S.E. 1094, 18 Ga. App. 582, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1121

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 21, 1916

Docket7371

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 1094 (Smith v. Leverette) 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

Smith v. Leverette, 89 S.E. 1094, 18 Ga. App. 582, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1121 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

The only error assigned in this ease being the overruling of the demurrer to the plea and answer of the defendant in the court below, and there being no final judgment excepted to, the bill of exceptions is prematurely brought, and must be dismissed. Civil Code, § 6138; Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Hodges, 9 Ga. App. 722 (72 S. E. 189); Hyland Chemical Co. v. Goddard, 10 Ga. App. 13 (72 S. E. 515); Donalson v. Norman, 14 Ga. App. 146 (80 S. E. 678); National Bank of Tifton v. Brown, 15 Ga. App. 56 (82 S. E. 628); Griffin v. Hollingsworth, 17 Ga. App. 403 (87 S. E. 155).

Writ of error dismissed.

Complaint; from city court of Houston county — Judge Eiley. February 15, 1916.

Feagin & Hancoch, for plaintiff. M. Kunz, for defendant.

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

Broyles, J.

The only error assigned in this ease being the overruling of the demurrer to the plea and answer of the defendant in the court below, and there being no final judgment excepted to, the bill of exceptions is prematurely brought, and must be dismissed. Civil Code, § 6138; Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Hodges, 9 Ga. App. 722 (72 S. E. 189); Hyland Chemical Co. v. Goddard, 10 Ga. App. 13 (72 S. E. 515); Donalson v. Norman, 14 Ga. App. 146 (80 S. E. 678); National Bank of Tifton v. Brown, 15 Ga. App. 56 (82 S. E. 628); Griffin v. Hollingsworth, 17 Ga. App. 403 (87 S. E. 155).

Writ of error dismissed.

Complaint; from city court of Houston county — Judge Eiley. February 15, 1916.

Feagin & Hancoch, for plaintiff. M. Kunz, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 1094, 18 Ga. App. 582, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-leverette-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack