Van Ormer v. Harris

Supreme Court of Georgia

Van Ormer v. Harris

191 S.E. 378, 184 Ga. 411, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 530

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1937

DocketNo. 11677

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 191 S.E. 378 (Van Ormer v. Harris) 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

Van Ormer v. Harris, 191 S.E. 378, 184 Ga. 411, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 530 (Ga. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Belt,, Justice.

The bill of exceptions as brought by the plaintiff assigns error only upon an order overruling thé plaintiff’s demurrer to the defendants’ plea in abatement. The judgment overruling the demurrer was not a final judgment, nor would a judgment sustaining the demurrer, as sought by the plaintiff, have been a final disposition of the case. Code, § 6-701; Bozeman v. Ward-Truitt Co., 141 Ga. 45 (80 S. E. 320); Johnson v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 141 Ga. 721 (81 S. E. 873); City of Tallapoosa v. Brock, 143 Ga. 599 (2) (85 S. E. 755); Western & Atlantic Railroad Co. v. Williams, 146 Ga. 27 (90 S. E. 478). It follows that the bill of .exceptions is premature, and must be dismissed. While no motion to dismiss has been made, it is the duty of this court to take notice of its own lack of jurisdiction; and the failure to assign error upon a final judgment is a defect relating to jurisdiction. Gilbert v. Tippens, 183 Ga. 497 (188 S. E. 699); Lynch v. Nations, 48 Ga. App. 549 (173 S. E. 203).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Belt,, Justice.

The bill of exceptions as brought by the plaintiff assigns error only upon an order overruling thé plaintiff’s demurrer to the defendants’ plea in abatement. The judgment overruling the demurrer was not a final judgment, nor would a judgment sustaining the demurrer, as sought by the plaintiff, have been a final disposition of the case. Code, § 6-701; Bozeman v. Ward-Truitt Co., 141 Ga. 45 (80 S. E. 320); Johnson v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 141 Ga. 721 (81 S. E. 873); City of Tallapoosa v. Brock, 143 Ga. 599 (2) (85 S. E. 755); Western & Atlantic Railroad Co. v. Williams, 146 Ga. 27 (90 S. E. 478). It follows that the bill of .exceptions is premature, and must be dismissed. While no motion to dismiss has been made, it is the duty of this court to take notice of its own lack of jurisdiction; and the failure to assign error upon a final judgment is a defect relating to jurisdiction. Gilbert v. Tippens, 183 Ga. 497 (188 S. E. 699); Lynch v. Nations, 48 Ga. App. 549 (173 S. E. 203).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E. 378, 184 Ga. 411, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-ormer-v-harris-ga-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack