Azar v. Baird
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Citation | 232 Ga. 81,205 S.E.2d 273 |
| Docket Number | No. 28637,28637 |
| Parties | Judith Ann Baird AZAR v. Helen L. BAIRD. |
| Decision Date | 16 April 1974 |
Syllabus by the Court
The trial court did not err in dismissing the appeal for unreasonable delay on the part of the appellant in transmitting the record to this court.
James B. Drew, Jr., Don M. Jones, Drew & Jomes, Atlanta, for appellant.
Alex D. McLennan, Tom Pye, Atlanta, for appellee.
This is a controversy over the title to certain bonds, an investment certificate and a savings account.
Mrs. Helen L. Baird brought suit in the Superior Court of Fulton County against Judith Ann Baird Azar.
Mrs. Baird, the plaintiff-appellee, sought declaratory relief and to enjoin the defendant-appellant from making further demands upon certain institutions with reference to these securities and to declare title to them to be in her alone.
The trial court granted an interlocutory injunction for the relief sought.
Thereafter the defendant-appellant gave notice of appeal and the plaintiff-appellee moved to dismiss it. By order filed October 26, 1973, the trial court granted that motion reciting essentially that 'there has been an unreasonable delay in the transmission of the record to the Supreme Court and such delay was inexcusable and was caused by the failure of the defendant to pay costs in the trial court or file a legally sufficient pauper's affidavit.
'It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged that the appeal of the defendant from the Order of the Court granting Interlocutory Injunction dated June 26, 1973 and entered June 28, 1973 be and is hereby dismissed.'
A subsequent notice of appeal to this court recites in material part that the defendant-appellant 'hereby appeals . . . from the motion to dismiss the appeal of defendant dated the 23rd day of October, 1973 denying defendant's motion to dismiss the motion filed by plaintiff . . .'
The plaintiff-appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal of the defendant-appellant alleging essentially as follows: '1. The Appeal to this Honorable Court is an appeal 'from the motion to dismiss the appeal of defendant . . .' Appeals may only be taken from judgments or orders under the law. This appeal is from neither a judgment nor an order and is therefore not allowable.
The plaintiff-appellee's motion to dismiss this appeal is denied.
We construe it to be an appeal from the order filed October 26, 1973, dismissing the defendant-appellan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Peach Trader Inc., S17A1314
...; Lamb v. Salvation Army , 301 Ga. App. 325, 687 S.E.2d 615 (2009) ; Hughes v. Sikes , 273 Ga. 804, 546 S.E.2d 518 (2001) ; Azar v. Baird , 232 Ga. 81, 205 S.E.2d 273 (1974). But our cases have also generated some confusion on that question by approving trial court dismissals in some instan......
-
American Medical v. Parker, No. S07G1388.
...a contempt judgment or was an interlocutory discovery order is an issue of law that must be resolved by this Court. 3. E.g., Azar v. Baird, 232 Ga. 81, 82-83, 205 S.E.2d 273 4. 233 Ga.App. 295, 296, 504 S.E.2d 504 (1998). 5. The Court of Appeals's decisions in Rodriguez v. Nunez, 252 Ga.App......
-
Picket v. Paine, No. 52367
...of preparing the record on appeal requires the dismissal of the appeal. George v. American Credit Control, Inc., supra; Azar v. Baird, 232 Ga. 81, 205 S.E.2d 273; Haynes v. City of Lake City, 136 Ga.App. 112, 220 S.E.2d Although the appellant may have felt compelled to contest the propriety......
-
Haynes v. Lake City, 51160
...v. Johnson, 223 Ga. 811, 158 S.E.2d 762; Pippins v. Securities Investment Co. of Atlanta, 223 Ga. 812, 158 S.E.2d 675; Azar v. Baird, 232 Ga. 81, 205 S.E.2d 273. See also, Smith v. Mayor, etc., of Lake City, 125 Ga.App. 772, 189 S.E.2d 104. We therefore, in accordance with these decisions, ......
-
Jones v. Peach Trader Inc.
...; Lamb v. Salvation Army , 301 Ga. App. 325, 687 S.E.2d 615 (2009) ; Hughes v. Sikes , 273 Ga. 804, 546 S.E.2d 518 (2001) ; Azar v. Baird , 232 Ga. 81, 205 S.E.2d 273 (1974). But our cases have also generated some confusion on that question by approving trial court dismissals in some instan......
-
American Medical v. Parker, S07G1388.
...a contempt judgment or was an interlocutory discovery order is an issue of law that must be resolved by this Court. 3. E.g., Azar v. Baird, 232 Ga. 81, 82-83, 205 S.E.2d 273 4. 233 Ga.App. 295, 296, 504 S.E.2d 504 (1998). 5. The Court of Appeals's decisions in Rodriguez v. Nunez, 252 Ga.App......
-
Picket v. Paine, 52367
...of preparing the record on appeal requires the dismissal of the appeal. George v. American Credit Control, Inc., supra; Azar v. Baird, 232 Ga. 81, 205 S.E.2d 273; Haynes v. City of Lake City, 136 Ga.App. 112, 220 S.E.2d Although the appellant may have felt compelled to contest the propriety......
-
Haynes v. Lake City, 51160
......Johnson, 223 Ga. 811, 158 S.E.2d 762; Pippins v. Securities Investment Co. of Atlanta, 223 Ga. 812, 158 S.E.2d 675; Azar v. Baird, 232 Ga. 81, 205 S.E.2d 273. See also, Smith v. Mayor, etc., of Lake City, 125 Ga.App. 772, 189 S.E.2d 104. We therefore, in accordance ......