Allied Productions, Inc. v. Peterson
| Decision Date | 26 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 29220,29220 |
| Citation | 233 Ga. 266,211 S.E.2d 123 |
| Parties | ALLIED PRODUCTIONS, INC., et al. v. O. Fred PETERSON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
William T. Brooks, Atlanta, for appellants.
Raiford & Hills, Barry E. Billington, Michael B. McKeithen, Decatur, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
O Fred Peterson obtained a money judgment against Allied Productions, Inc., Howard E. Caldwell, Martha Caldwell, and others in the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia. That judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Virginia. Thereafter an action seeking only to domesticate this foreign judgment was filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, and a motion for summary judgment thereon was granted to the plaintiff against Allied Productions, Inc., Howard E. Caldwell and Martha Caldwell.
These defendants filed a notice of appeal to the grant of the summary judgment, but prior to the record being transmitted to the Court of Appeals and the case docketed there, the plaintiff filed motions to require a supersedeas bond and for an interlocutory injunction while the case was on appeal. The motion for interlocutory injunction sought to restrain 'defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and any and all persons in active concert or participation with them' from disposing of assets or removing them outside the state. The issues made by these motions came on to be heard and an order was entered on June 24, 1974, granting plaintiff an interlocutory injunction until further order of the court unless a supersedeas bond was filed prior to a date certain. The interlocutory injunction was directed not only to the defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, but also to any corporations, partnerships or associations owned or controlled by defendants and the property owned by them. The appeal to this court is from the grant of the interlocutory injunction by the trial court after a final judgment had been entered in the case.
The question presented is whether during the period after final judgment and after the filing of the notice of appeal but prior to the docketing of the appeal in the appellate court, the trial court had jurisdiction to enter any further order in this case, and, if so, whether the trial court had authority to issue the interlocutory injunction.
The Act of 1965 (Ga.L.1965, pp. 18, 22; Code Ann. § 6-1002(a)), provides that, 'In civil cases, the notice of appeal filed as hereinbefore provided shall serve as supersedeas, upon payment of all costs in the trial court by the appellant, and it shall not be necessary that a supersedeas bond be filed: Provided, however, upon motion by appellee, the trial court shall require that supersedeas bond be given with such surety and in such amount as the court may require . . .' In Jackson v. Martin, 225 Ga. 170(2b), 167 S.E.2d 135, it was held that the trial court was without jurisdiction to supplement a previously entered final judgment after a notice of appeal had been filed. This holding has been followed in Aetna Casualty Insurance Co. v. Bullington, 227 Ga. 485(1), 181 S.E.2d 495; Park v. Minton, 229 Ga. 765(4), 194 S.E.2d 465, and other cases. Each of these cases dealt with an attempt to modify or vacate a previously entered judgment after a notice of appeal had been filed. In Swindle v. Swindle, 221 Ga. 760(5), 147 S.E.2d 307, it was held that such provision of the Appellate Practice Act did not preclude the trial court from granting temporary alimony where a notice of appeal had been filed from the judgment overruling a general demurrer to the appellee's divorce and alimony complaint. In 1968 (Ga.L.1968, p. 1072; Code Ann. § 6-809), the Appellate Practice Act was amended so as to provide for dismissals of appeal in the trial court under certain circumstances. Thus, it is seen that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watkins v. Watkins
...of appeal had been filed. Jackson v. Martin, 225 Ga. 170, 172(2)(b), 167 S.E.2d 135 (1969). See also Allied Productions, Inc. v. Peterson, 233 Ga. 266, 267, 211 S.E.2d 123 (1974); Deans v. Dain Mgmt., Inc., 201 Ga.App. 466, 468, 411 S.E.2d 354 (1991). These principles apply equally to this ......
-
Hawn v. Chastain
...v. Clegg, 82 Ga. 763, 9 S.E. 1042 (1889); DeFee v. Williams, 114 Ga.App. 571, 151 S.E.2d 923 (1966); Allied Productions, Inc. v. Peterson, 233 Ga. 266, 211 S.E.2d 123 (1974); Byers v. Lieberman, 126 Ga.App. 582, 191 S.E.2d 470 (1972); Hubbard v. Farmers Bank, 153 Ga.App. 497, 265 S.E.2d 845......
-
Wall v. Citizens & Southern Bank of Houston County, 58909
...does not require this court to consider it, as the lower court lost jurisdiction of this case on appeal. See Allied Productions, Inc. v. Peterson, 233 Ga. 266, 267, 211 S.E.2d 123; Park v. Minton, 229 Ga. 765, 766(4), 194 S.E.2d 465; Walker v. Walker, 239 Ga. 175, 176, 236 S.E.2d 263; Aetna......
-
Wehunt v. ITT Business Communications Corp.
...definition of same, the court would have been required to set a bond of this general amount. OCGA § 5-6-46; Allied Productions v. Peterson, 233 Ga. 266, 268, 211 S.E.2d 123 (1974). The efficacy accorded to the motion by the court after the notice of appeal was filed, without requiring a new......