Thomas v. Hubert

Supreme Court of Georgia

Thomas v. Hubert

65 S.E.2d 155, 208 Ga. 72, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 541

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1951

Docket17433

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 65 S.E.2d 155 (Thomas v. Hubert) 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

Thomas v. Hubert, 65 S.E.2d 155, 208 Ga. 72, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 541 (Ga. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Hawkins, Justice.

The plaintiff in error brought a rule for contempt against his client, who was plaintiff in a divorce and injunction proceeding, and against another member of the bar who had appeared for the plaintiff in the trial of that case. While the rule for contempt' was entitled in the divorce and injunction proceeding, it was not predicated upon any provision of the final decree in that case, and all ques *73 tions of divorce and injunction which the case originally contained had been disposed of by final decree before the present proceeding came to judgment in the trial court. No ruling upon any question involving equity or divorce being presented for review, the Court of Appeals, and not this Court, has jurisdiction of the writ of error. Jackson Electric Membership Corp. v. Echols, 207 Ga. 707 (63 S. E. 2d, 900).

No. 17433. Argued April 10, 1951 Decided May 15, 1951. William A. Thomas, in propria persona. Russell G. Turner and H. O. Hubert, for defendants.

Transferred, to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hawkins, Justice.

The plaintiff in error brought a rule for contempt against his client, who was plaintiff in a divorce and injunction proceeding, and against another member of the bar who had appeared for the plaintiff in the trial of that case. While the rule for contempt' was entitled in the divorce and injunction proceeding, it was not predicated upon any provision of the final decree in that case, and all ques *73 tions of divorce and injunction which the case originally contained had been disposed of by final decree before the present proceeding came to judgment in the trial court. No ruling upon any question involving equity or divorce being presented for review, the Court of Appeals, and not this Court, has jurisdiction of the writ of error. Jackson Electric Membership Corp. v. Echols, 207 Ga. 707 (63 S. E. 2d, 900).

No. 17433. Argued April 10, 1951 Decided May 15, 1951. William A. Thomas, in propria persona. Russell G. Turner and H. O. Hubert, for defendants.

Transferred, to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 S.E.2d 155, 208 Ga. 72, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-hubert-ga-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack