Atlantic-Canadian Corp. v. Hammer, Siler, George Associates, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | ATLANTIC-CANADIAN,No. 65877,65877 |
| Citation | 306 S.E.2d 22,167 Ga.App. 257 |
| Parties | CORPORATION v. HAMMER, SILER, GEORGE ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Jack T. Camp, J. Littleton Glover, Jr., Newnan, for appellant.
Peter J. Quist, Bruce M. Edenfield, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellee filed suit against appellant in October 1981. The case was called for trial on June 21, 1982, and when appellant failed to appear, judgment was entered for appellee. On August 4, 1982, appellant filed a motion to set aside the June 21 judgment or, in the alternative, for a new trial. That motion was denied by an order entered October 11, 1982. Appellant then filed a notice of appeal on November 3, 1982, specifying as the judgment from which the appeal was taken "the Judgment entered in this action on June 21, 1982."
1. Tillman v. Groover, 25 Ga.App. 118(1), 102 S.E. 879.
The timely filing of the notice of appeal is a mandatory prerequisite to the attachment of appellate jurisdiction. Venable v. Block, 141 Ga.App. 523, 233 S.E.2d 878. The fact that appellant claims to have had no notice of the entry of judgment until after 30 days had run does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. In Cambron v. Canal Ins. Co., 246 Ga. 147, 269 S.E.2d 426, the Supreme Court held that the failure of the trial court to notify counsel of the entry of judgment as required by OCGA § 15-6-21(c) (Code Ann. § 24-2620) would warrant the grant of a motion to set aside the judgment. The Supreme Court did not hold, however, that a lack of notice of entry of a judgment would extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.
The filing of appellant's motion to set aside was also ineffective as an extender of the time for filing a notice of appeal. Graves v. American Alloy Steel, Inc., 160 Ga.App. 378(1), 287 S.E.2d 94; Dutton v. Dykes, 159 Ga.App. 48(2), 283 S.E.2d 28. A statement to the contrary in Littlejohn v. Tower Associates Ltd., 163 Ga.App. 37, 38, 293 S.E.2d 33, does not comport with the earlier precedents cited above and need not be followed.
Nor does the portion of the August 4 motion denominated as a motion for new trial aid appellant's cause. If it is considered as an ordinary motion for new trial, it was filed too late to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. Smith v. Forrester, 145 Ga.App. 281, 243 S.E.2d 575.
Since appellant filed neither a notice of appeal nor one of the motions specified in OCGA § 5-6-38 (Code Ann. § 6-803) within 30 days of the entry of the June 21 judgment, this court has no jurisdiction to review that judgment. Venable v. Block, supra.
2. If, as appellant argues it should be, the August 4 motion is treated as an extraordinary motion for new trial, which "institutes an entirely new case" (Powell v. Weeks, 54 Ga.App. 468, 188 S.E. 263), then appellate jurisdiction has not attached because there is no notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Estate of Dasher
...this court, we must first consider whether this court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Atlantic-Canadian Corp. v. Hammer, Siler &c. Assoc., 167 Ga.App. 257(1), 306 S.E.2d 22 (1983). The probate court's order which is sought to be appealed was entered on March 14, 2001;1 the notice ......
-
Gale v. Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.
...in all cases in which there may be any doubt as to the existence of such jurisdiction." [Cit.]' " Atlantic-Canadian Corp. v. Hammer, Siler & c. Assoc., 167 Ga.App. 257(1), 306 S.E.2d 22. Although typically such questions are concerned with a particular case, we find them equally applicable ......
-
Fabe v. Floyd
...is our jurisdiction to consider all of the issues on appeal. Court of Appeals Rule 32(d); Atlantic-Canadian Corp. v. Hammer, Siler, etc., Assoc., 167 Ga.App. 257, 306 S.E.2d 22. The record shows that Fabe's enumerations of error asserting that the trial court failed to give full faith and c......
-
Hipple v. Brick, s. A91A1837
...OCGA § 9-11-60(d). See Cambron v. Canal Ins. Co., 246 Ga. 147, 148(1), 269 S.E.2d 426 (1980); Atlantic-Canadian Corp. v. Hammer, Siler, George & Assoc., 167 Ga.App. 257(1), 306 S.E.2d 22 (1983). Brick, however, did not advance the lack of such a motion as a basis for his claim of Client Bri......