Smith v. Perryman

144 S.E. 341, 38 Ga. App. 496, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 310
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided August 29, 1928·No. 18659·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Stephens, J.

Since the award of a nonsuit can not be reviewed by a motion for a new trial, the court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial. Farmers Union Warehouse &c. Co. v. Stewart, 138 Ga. 733 (75 S. E. 1131); Buchanan v. James, 134 Ga. 475 (68 S. E. 72).

2. If in such a suit this court has jurisdiction to entertain and pass upon the assignments of error made in the exceptions pendente lite filed by the defendant, there is no assignment of error in the bill of exceptions, either upon the exceptions pendente lite or upon the rulings complained of in the exceptions pendente lité. Therefore the alleged errors complained of in the exceptions pendente lite can not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Bell, J., eoneu.r.

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

Smith v. Perryman, 144 S.E. 341, 38 Ga. App. 496, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 310 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

144 S.E. 341 (Smith v. Perryman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dorsey v. Hawkins
130 S.E.2d 811 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Eskew v. Constitution Publishing Company
23 S.E.2d 500 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
DeLoach v. Hicks
187 S.E. 886 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Hartsfield Co. v. Kitchens
179 S.E. 920 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Cadwell v. Phillips
152 S.E. 585 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)