English v. Rosenkrantz

Decision Date16 December 1920
Docket Number(No. 1901.)
Citation150 Ga. 745,105 S.E. 292
PartiesENGLISH et al. v. ROSENKRANTZ.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

(Syllabus by the Court.)

[Ed. Note—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Final Decree or Judgment.]

Certified Questions from Court of Appeals.

Suit by Rebie Rosenkrantz against J. W. English and others. Judgment overruling a plea of res judicata, and defendants brought error. On question certified by the Court of Appeals. Certified question answered in the negative.

Brewster, Howell & Heyman and Mark Bolding, all of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

V. A. Batchelor, King & Spalding, and John A. Sibley, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

GEORGE, J. This case comes to the Supreme Court on questions certified by the Court of Appeals. Several questions are certified; but the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and of this court depends upon the answer to the second question, which is as follows:

"Where a defendant filed a plea of res judicata, which was by agreement submitted to the trial judge for determination upon questions both of law and fact, the latter being undisputed, did a finding by the trial judge adverse to this plea of res judicata affect the final result of the case, or would a judgment finding in favor of the plea, contended for by the defendant, 'have been a final disposition of the cause, ' and would a bill of exceptions lie to the judgment rendered as provided for in the Civil Code 1910, § 6138? The plea of res judicata prayed 'that this case be dismissed, or that the plaintiff be held to be estopped from further prosecuting the same.' The judgment finding against the plea of res judicata was as follows: 'The within case coming on for a hearing upon plea of res adjudicata; and it being agreed by counsel of record for both plaintiff and defendants that the special plea should be submitted to the presiding judge without a jury, who should pass upon all questions of law and fact, after hearing evidence and argument of counsel, it is ordered, considered, and adjudged that said plea of res adjudicata be, and is hereby, overruled and refused.' "

Under the decision in the case of City of Tallapoosa v. Brock, 143 Ga. 599, 85 S. E. 755 a direct bill of exceptions will not lie to the judgment overruling the plea of res judicata to the suit. In that case, as in this, as disclosed by the original record of file in the office of the clerk of this court, the issue raised by the plea was, by agreement of counse...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Peerless Laundry Co. v. Abraham
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 25 Octubre 1941
    ... ... City of Tallapoosa v. Brock, ... 143 Ga. 599, 85 S.E. 755; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v ... Williams, 146 Ga. 27, 90 S.E. 478; English v ... Rosenkrantz, 150 Ga. 745, 105 S.E. 292; Douglas v ... Hardin, 163 Ga. 643, 136 S.E. [193 Ga. 180] 793; ... Loveless v. McCollum, 189 Ga ... ...
  • Hadden v. Fuqua
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 22 Septiembre 1942
    ... ... rendered against him and in favor of the plaintiffs. As to ... the effect of a judgment sustaining a plea of res judicata, ... see English v. Rosenkrantz, 150 Ga. 745, 105 S.E ... 292; Peerless Laundry Co. v. Abraham, 193 Ga. 179, ... 17 S.E.2d 267. As to the proper practice after ... ...
  • Milner v. Sunbeam Heating Co, 21292.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 17 Octubre 1931
    ...(1), 141 S. E. 497; Willis v. Daniel, 39 Ga. App. 670, 148 S. E. 301; Battle v. Hambrick, 142 Ga. 807, 83 S. E. 937; English v. Rosenkrantz, 150 Ga. 745, 105 S. E. 292. 2. While the defendant in error has made no motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions, it is not only the right but the dut......
  • Milner v. Sunbeam Heating Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 17 Octubre 1931
    ...689 (1), 141 S.E. 497; Willis v. Daniel, 39 Ga.App. 670, 148 S.E. 301; Battle v. Hambrick, 142 Ga. 807, 83 S.E. 937; English v. Rosenkrantz, 150 Ga. 745, 105 S.E. 292. While the defendant in error has made no motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions, it is not only the right but the duty of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT