Hardy v. DG Machinery & Gage Company
| Decision Date | 21 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | 24817. |
| Citation | 165 S.E.2d 127,224 Ga. 818 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | HARDY et al. v. D. G. MACHINERY & GAGE COMPANY. |
Nall, Miller, Cadenhead & Dennis, Robert E. Corry, Jr., for appellants.
Fine & Block, Sturgis S. Bates, III, William A. Edwards, Jr., for appellee.
The writ of certiorari was granted in this case to review the ruling of the Court of Appeals which held that the motion to dismiss the appeal in that court on the ground that the transcript was not filed within thirty days of the filing of the notice of appeal as required by Code Ann. § 6-806 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 26) or within any extension of time obtained under Code Ann. § 6-804 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 21) was without merit in view of the 1968 addition of Paragraph (d) to Section 13 of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1072, 1073, Sec. 2; Code Ann. § 6-809 (d)). D. G. Machinery & Gage Co. v. Hardy, 118 Ga. App. 45 (1) (162 SE2d 852).
Under the ruling of this court in Fahrig v. Garrett, 224 Ga. 817, the motion to dismiss the appeal should have been granted.
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Inv. Corp. v. Cherry
...167 S.E.2d 135; Fahrig v. Garrett, 224 Ga. 817, 165 S.E.2d 126; Jacobs v. Shiver, 226 Ga. 284, 174 S.E.2d 415; Hardy v. D. G. Machinery & Gage Co., 224 Ga. 818, 165 S.E.2d 127, conformed to in D. G. Machinery & Gage Co. v. Hardy, 119 Ga.App. 194, 166 S.E.2d 580. It necessarily follows that ......
-
Baxter v. Long
...1072, et seq.), but find that the same result still obtains. See Fahrig v. Garrett, 224 Ga. 817, 165 S.E.2d 126; Hardy v. D. G. Machinery & Gage Co., 224 Ga. 818, 165 S.E.2d 127.' Martin Theatres of Georgia v. Lloyd, 118 Ga.App. 835, 165 S.E.2d 909. And see Calloway v. State, 119 Ga.App. 19......
-
Buffalo Holding Co. v. Shores, 46093
...167 S.E.2d 135; Fahrig v. Garrett, 224 Ga. 817, 165 S.E.2d 126; Jacobs v. Shiver, 226 Ga. 284, 174 S.E.2d 415; Hardy v. D. G. Machinery & Gage Co., 224 Ga. 818, 165 S.E.2d 127, conformed to in D. G. Machinery & Gage Co. v. Hardy, 119 Ga.App. 194, 166 S.E.2d 580. It necessarily follows that ......
-
Smith v. Smith
...be for determination in the lower court, but the cases of Fahrig v. Garrett, 224 Ga. 817(2), 165 S.E.2d 126, and Hardy v. D. G. Machinery, etc., Co., 224 Ga. 818, 165 S.E.2d 127, were written subsequent to the enactment of the above statute, and both made reference to such statute, but held......