Stedham v. Farmers State Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stedham v. Farmers State Bank

141 S.E. 90, 37 Ga. App. 605, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 521

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 7, 1928

Docket18571

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 S.E. 90 (Stedham v. Farmers State Bank) 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

Stedham v. Farmers State Bank, 141 S.E. 90, 37 Ga. App. 605, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 521 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

In the bill of exceptions the only judgment excepted to was the overruling of a motion for a continuance of the ease. There was no exception to the verdict and the judgment based thereon. It is obvious that a judgment overruling a motion to continue a cause is not a final judgment within the meaning of section 6138 of the Civil Code of 1910; and the bill of exceptions, containing no exceptions to any judgment or decision final in its nature, can not be entertained. See, in this connection, Moore v. Hill, 87 Ga. 91 (13 S. E. 259); Barney v. Bowles, 112 Ga. 421 (37 S. E. 364) ; MeCranie v. Shipp, 10 Ga. App. 544 (73 S. E. 701); Cheney v. Corbitt Motor Truck Co., 36 Ga. App. 590 (137 S. E. 412).

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

In the bill of exceptions the only judgment excepted to was the overruling of a motion for a continuance of the ease. There was no exception to the verdict and the judgment based thereon. It is obvious that a judgment overruling a motion to continue a cause is not a final judgment within the meaning of section 6138 of the Civil Code of 1910; and the bill of exceptions, containing no exceptions to any judgment or decision final in its nature, can not be entertained. See, in this connection, Moore v. Hill, 87 Ga. 91 (13 S. E. 259); Barney v. Bowles, 112 Ga. 421 (37 S. E. 364) ; MeCranie v. Shipp, 10 Ga. App. 544 (73 S. E. 701); Cheney v. Corbitt Motor Truck Co., 36 Ga. App. 590 (137 S. E. 412).

Writ of error dismissed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E. 90, 37 Ga. App. 605, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stedham-v-farmers-state-bank-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack