Van Norden v. AUTO CREDIT COMPANY, INC.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Van Norden v. AUTO CREDIT COMPANY, INC.

131 S.E.2d 123, 107 Ga. App. 676, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 953

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 24, 1963

Docket40054

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 131 S.E.2d 123 (Van Norden v. AUTO CREDIT COMPANY, INC.) 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

Van Norden v. AUTO CREDIT COMPANY, INC., 131 S.E.2d 123, 107 Ga. App. 676, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 953 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

The overruling of plea of material alteration to a suit on a conditional-sale contract and note is not a final judgment to which a writ of error will lie. If the plea had been sustained, as contended for by the plaintiff in error (defendant below), it would still have been necessary to have judgment entered for the defendant in order to terminate the case; and in order to review a sustaining or overruling of the plea there must be an assignment of error upon the final judgment in the case. See, as to a plea in bar, Medernach v. Bazemore, 100 Ga. App. 721 (112 SE2d 272) (accord and satisfaction); Besco Corp. v. Buice, 99 Ga. App. 528 (109 *677 SE2d 88); Turner v. Walters, 105 Ga. App. 852 (125 SE2d 703) (workmen’s compensation coverage in personal injury-action); Levy v. Logan, 98 Ga. App. 584 (2) (106 SE2d 185) (estoppel by contract). This court is without jurisdiction and the bill of exceptions must be

Decided April 24, 1963. Scott Walters, Jr., for plaintiffs in error. Ronald J. Armstrong, contra.

Dismissed.

Felton, C. J., and Russell, J., concur.

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

Eberhardt, Judge.

The overruling of plea of material alteration to a suit on a conditional-sale contract and note is not a final judgment to which a writ of error will lie. If the plea had been sustained, as contended for by the plaintiff in error (defendant below), it would still have been necessary to have judgment entered for the defendant in order to terminate the case; and in order to review a sustaining or overruling of the plea there must be an assignment of error upon the final judgment in the case. See, as to a plea in bar, Medernach v. Bazemore, 100 Ga. App. 721 (112 SE2d 272) (accord and satisfaction); Besco Corp. v. Buice, 99 Ga. App. 528 (109 *677 SE2d 88); Turner v. Walters, 105 Ga. App. 852 (125 SE2d 703) (workmen’s compensation coverage in personal injury-action); Levy v. Logan, 98 Ga. App. 584 (2) (106 SE2d 185) (estoppel by contract). This court is without jurisdiction and the bill of exceptions must be

Decided April 24, 1963. Scott Walters, Jr., for plaintiffs in error. Ronald J. Armstrong, contra.

Dismissed.

Felton, C. J., and Russell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E.2d 123, 107 Ga. App. 676, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-norden-v-auto-credit-company-inc-gactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack