Miller v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 06 September 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 19759,19759 |
| Citation | 99 S.E.2d 905,213 Ga. 460 |
| Parties | Henry B. MILLER et al. v. S. M. COLEMAN et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
A verdict was returned for the plaintiffs, and a decree enjoining the maintenance of an alleged nuisance by the defendants (the present plaintiffs in error) was duly entered. Their motion for a new trial was overruled, and that judgment was affirmed by this court. Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 125, 97 S.E.2d 313.
After judgment upon the remittitur from this court, the plaintiffs in error filed a motion to amend the decree. It was alleged: 'That the aforesaid decree does not conform to the pleading, the evidence and the verdict for the reason that it is too broad in scope and does not confine itself to the nuisance complained of,' and 'said decree is further vague and indefinite' for stated reasons.
The motion to amend was overruled, and the exception here is to that judgment.
Shelby Myrick, Ralph L. Crawford, Savannah, for plaintiffs in error.
Frank, S. Cheatham, Jr., Savannah, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. 'If a judgment or decree is erroneous or illegal, direct exception should be taken to it at the proper time.' Barber v. Barber, 157 Ga. 188, 121 S.E. 317; City of Atlantic v. Carroll, 194 Ga. 172(3), 21 S.E.2d 869 2. A bill of exceptions to the final judgment rendered upon the trial of a case must be tendered within 30 days from the date of such final judgment. Ga.L.1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., pp. 279, 280 (Code Ann.Supp. § 6-902).
3. 'A judgment of a trial court, which after a writ of error stands unreversed, or to which no exception has been taken, is the law of the case.' Palmer v. Jackson, 188 Ga. 336, 338, 4 S.E.2d 28, 30; Ballard v. Harmon, 202 Ga. 603, 605, 44 S.E.2d 260.
4. In the present case the motion was not one to vacate or set aside the decree (see Code, § 3-702), but was a motion to 'amend' after the time for excepting thereto had expired. The motion to amend was therefore properly denied.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hickman v. Frazier, 47622
...and right to prosecute same for the wrongs therein complained of, and to recover the damages therein prayed for. In Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 460(3), 99 S.E.2d 905 it is held: 'A judgment of a trial court, which after a writ of error stands unreversed, or to which no exception has been tak......
- Pierce v. Haygood
-
Hollis v. Maxwell, 20593
...was or was not in comformity to the pleadings and evidence. See City of Atlanta v. Carroll, 194 Ga. 172(3), 21 S.E.2d 86; Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 460, 99 S.E.2d 905. This ground therefore cannot be 7. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that a contract was entered i......
-
Miller v. Coleman, 20231
...subsequent motion by the defendants to amend the decree was denied and that judgment was also affirmed by this court. See Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 460, 99 S.E.2d 905. In the case now before us for review, the petition alleges a wilful violation of the terms of the decree and from the evid......