Elliott v. Service Trust & Sav., 39815
| Decision Date | 20 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 39815,No. 2,39815,2 |
| Citation | 107 Ga.App. 48,129 S.E.2d 203 |
| Parties | Kent M. ELLIOTT v. SERVICE TRUST & SAVINGS |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Marilyn W. Carney, Vincent P. McCauley, Columbus, for plaintiff in error.
Roberts & Thornton, Owen Roberts, Jr., Columbus, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Service Trust & Savings filed suit in the Municipal Court of Columbus against Kent M. Elliott, alleging that the defendant was indebted to it in the sum of $893.82 (including interest and attorneys' fees) under a contract of conditional sale and note which were attached as exhibits to the petition, and seeking to recover said amount against the defendant. The defendant filed a plea in abatement to the petition in which he sought to abate the present action on the ground that under the terms of the contract sued upon, Bexar County, Texas, was by mutual agreement of the parties designated as the county having venue of any and all causes of action arising under said contract. The defendant also filed a general demurrer and answer to the petition. The trial judge overruled the defendant's plea in abatement and directed a verdict against the defendant in the amount of $816.92. The bill of exceptions assigns error on the order of the trial court overruling the plea in abatement and on two rulings made by the court during the progress of the trial, there being no exception to the final judgment of the trial court directing a verdict against the defendant. Held:
1. In the absence of an assignment of error in the bill of exceptions on a final judgment in the cause under consideration, this court is without jurisdiction to review the assignments of error on antecedent rulings made during the progress of the trial. Winder Lumber Co. . Washington Brick Co., 149 Ga. 215, 99 S.E. 863; Butler v. Spiller, Inc., 173 Ga. 564, 160 S.E. 907; Rabhan v. Rabhan, 185 Ga. 355(1), 195 S.E. 193; Brown v. Marks Auto Sales, 93 Ga.App. 741(3), 92 S.E.2d 832.
2. The judgment sustaining or overruling a plea in abatement is not such a final judgment as can be made the subject of a bill of exceptions to this court within Code Ann. § 6-701 unless final judgment in the whole case has been entered; and even if entered, if no assignment of error is made thereon, the matter is not subject to review. Price v. Stewart, 209 Ga. 339(2), 72 S.E.2d 459; Harris v. State, 64 Ga.App. 281, 13 S.E.2d 42; Johannesen v. Whiddon, 85 Ga.App. 252(2), 69...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...we reverse Smith's conviction and remand for a new trial. Poultryland, Inc., 200 Ga. at 562(2), 37 S.E.2d 785;Hall v. Hobbs, 107 Ga.App. at 48, 129 S.E.2d 209. 2. Because the issue may arise again in a new trial, we will address Smith's contention that the trial court erred in granting the ......
-
Williams v. Wellington, s. 40346
...Medernach v. Bazemore, 100 Ga.App. 721, 112 S.E.2d 272; Turner v. Walters, 105 Ga.App. 852, 125 S.E.2d 703; Elliott v. Service Trust & Savings, 107 Ga.App. 48, 129 S.E.2d 203; Manion v. Knight, 107 Ga.App. 270, 129 S.E.2d 582; Van Norden v. Auto Credit Co., 107 Ga.App. 676, 131 S.E.2d 123; ......
- Hall v. Hobbs
-
State Highway Dept. v. Kirchmeyer, 42107
...Judge. Since the order sustaining the pleas in abatement filed by the condemnee is not a final judgment (see Elliott v. Service Trust & Savings, 107 Ga.App. 48(2), 129 S.E.2d 203), the question to be decided on the motion to dismiss the appeal in this court is whether the overruling of a ge......