Loveless v. McCollum
| Decision Date | 10 October 1939 |
| Docket Number | 12817. |
| Citation | 5 S.E.2d 582,189 Ga. 219 |
| Parties | LOVELESS v. McCOLLUM. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1939.
Answers to Certified Questions Conformed to Nov. 29, 1939.
See 5 S.E.2d 921.
H. A. Etheridge, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Howard Tiller & Howard and A. C. Corbett, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. A judgment sustaining a plea of res judicata to a suit, but not ordering dismissal of the action, is not 'final,' within the meaning of the Code, § 6-701. English v Rosenkrantz, 150 Ga. 745, 746, 105 S.E. 292. Crider v. Harris, 181 Ga. 555, 182 S.E. 592. See also Ross v. Mercer, 115 Ga. 353, 354, 41 S.E. 594; Garman v. Atlanta, 55 Ga.App. 683, 191 S.E. 164.
2. The only defense filed to a suit on notes was a plea of res judicata. The court, after introduction of evidence, directed a verdict as follows: 'We, the jury, find for the defendant in favor of the plea of res adjudicata.' The only judgment rendered was as follows: 'This case coming on for hearing on the plea of res adjudicata filed by the defendant, and the jury having found in favor of the plea judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant on said plea, and against the plaintiff for cost of court.' The exception by the plaintiff to the direction of the verdict is not an exception to a final judgment.
3. Applying the principle announced in the preceding division, the writ of error is subject to dismissal on the ground that the bill of exceptions does not contain an exception to a final judgment or an exception to a judgment which would have been final if rendered as contended for.
(a) The rulings in Scarborough v. Holder, 127 Ga. 256, 56 S.E. 293; McKenzie's Sons & Co. v. Consolidated Lumber Co., 142 Ga. 375, 380(4), 82 S.E. 1062, and Harry L. Winter, Inc., v. People's Bank, 166 Ga. 385, 143 S.E. 387, related to different facts, and do not conflict with what is here stated.
(b) The decision in Newsome v. Smith, 25 Ga.App. 148 102 S.E. 841, does not seem to be in accord with the ruling announced in the first division, or the decisions of this court therein cited; but it is not controlling as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peerless Laundry Co. v. Abraham
...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. 793; Loveless v. McCollum, 189 Ga. 219, 5 S.E.2d 582; Harris v. Stowers, 192 Ga. 215, 15 S.E.2d 193. also, Ross v. Mercer, 115 Ga. 353, 41 S.E. 594. 3. A direct bill of exception......
-
W. T. Rawleigh Co v. Forbes
...case, is not such a final judgment as will support a direct bill of exceptions to this court. See Code, § 6-701; Loveless v. McCollum, 189 Ga. 219, 5 S.E.2d 582; and Ross v. Mercer, 115 Ga. 353, 41 S.E. 594. Error from City Court of Louisville; J. R. Powell, Jr., presiding in place of W. Wr......
-
W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Forbes
...174 S.E. 140; Brock v. City of Tallapoosa, 19 Ga.App. 793, 92 S.E. 289; Crider v. Harris, supra; Garman v. City of Atlanta, supra; Loveless v. Mc Cullum, supra, leave is granted to plaintiff in error to treat the official copy of the bill of exceptions filed in the office of the clerk of th......
-
Loveless v. Carten
...filed by the defendant was not a final judgment. The Supreme Court answered such questions that it was not a final judgment (189 Ga. 219, 5 S.E. 2d 582) and the Court of Appeals, in conformity therewith, the writ of error, with direction that the official copy of the bill of exceptions of f......