Woodland v. Woodland

125 S.E. 732, 33 Ga. App. 167, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 794
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 9, 1924·No. 15956·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Although the trial judge in his order stated that he sustained the “general” demurrer, an inspection of -the order and the demurrer clearly shows that the only effect of the order was to strike from the petition certain items of the account sued for, and to leave the suit, as to some of the items sued for, still pending in the court. It follows, that the order sustaining the so-called general demurrer was not a final judgment- in the case, and the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the bill of exceptions is granted.

Writ of error dismissed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Woodland v. Woodland, 125 S.E. 732, 33 Ga. App. 167, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 794 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

125 S.E. 732 (Woodland v. Woodland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rowe v. Johnson
76 S.E.2d 429 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Joyner v. Hamilton
53 S.E.2d 133 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Hitchcock v. Hamilton
192 S.E. 726 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Trust Co. v. Mobley
150 S.E. 169 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)