Malcom v. Webb, 18172
| Citation | 209 Ga. 735,75 S.E.2d 801 |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 18172,18172 |
| Parties | MALCOM v. WEBB, Sol. Gen. et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Harris & Gower, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Carl B. Copeland, Paul Webb, Paul Webb, Jr., Harold Sheats and Durwood T. Pye, Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. A ruling on a general demurrer is reviewable at the option of the losing party by either a direct exception or by exception pendente lite. But by filing pendente lite exceptions the ruling is made a pendente lite judgment and can be reviewed only in a bill of exceptions complaining of the final judgment. Durrence v. Waters, 140 Ga. 762(1), 79 S.E. 841; Gilbert v. Tippens, 183 Ga. 497, 188 S.E. 699; Rabhan v. Rabhan, 185 Ga. 355, 195 S.E. 193; Story v. City of Macon, 203 Ga. 105(2), 45 S.E.2d 196.
2. Where, as here, the judgment on the general demurrer was excepted to pendente lite, the foregoing ruling requires a dismissal of the writ of error upon the ground that it is premature, since there is no exception to a final judgment terminating the case.
3. The assignments of error upon exceptions pendente lite to rulings on (a) the motion to strike the solicitor-general as a party, and (b) the plea of a former adjudication--if reviewable at all in an exception to ruling on a demurrer, see Mechanics' & Traders' Bank of Rome v. Harrison, 68 Ga. 463--are for the foregoing reasons premature in this writ of error.
Writ of error dismissed.
All the Justices concur, except ATKINSON, P. J., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malcom v. Webb
...the trial court in connection with certain demurrers filed in this suit were later sought to be reviewed in this court in Malcom v. Webb, 209 Ga. 735, 75 S.E.2d 801, but this court held that the bill of exceptions was premature, and that writ of error was The present action, as amended, all......
- Walker v. Hamilton