Whiddon v. Hill

179 S.E. 104, 180 Ga. 430, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 280
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 17, 1935·No. No. 10293·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

A will was offered for probate in solemn form, a caveat was filed, and a motion to strike the caveat was sustained. The bill of exceptions contains no assignment of error upon any judgment granting or refusing probate of the will, but the sustaining of the motion to strike the caveat is the only error assigned. Held, that the judgment complained of is not a final judgment and would not have been final “if it had been rendered as claimed by plaintiff in error.” Code of 1910, § 6138. This court is therefore without jurisdiction to entertain the bill of exceptions; and the writ of error must be dismissed. See Murphy v. Murphy, 147 Ga. 175 (93 S. E. 89) ; Ragan v. Smith, 165 Ga. 175 (140 S. E. 288) ; Malsby v. Shipp, 177 Ga. 54 (169 S. E. 308), and cit.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Whiddon v. Hill, 179 S.E. 104, 180 Ga. 430, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 280 (Ga. 1935).

179 S.E. 104 (Whiddon v. Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Driver v. Sheffield
82 S.E.2d 847 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1954)
Shropshire v. Broome
61 S.E.2d 284 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Price v. Hill
190 S.E. 575 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)