Nail v. Nail
| Decision Date | 12 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 19268,19268 |
| Citation | 92 S.E.2d 109,212 Ga. 299 |
| Parties | Mada NAIL v. Arthur NAIL, Executor, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Nathan & Browne, A. A. Nathan, Leo A. Browne, Jr., Brunswick, for plaintiff in error.
Joe Thomas, Jesup, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. The final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction enures to the benefit of and is binding upon the parties to it and their privies. Brock v. Garrett, 16 Ga. 487; Russell v. Slaton, 25 Ga. 193; Robinson v. Wilkins, 74 Ga. 47; Clark v. Tennessee Chemical Co., 167 Ga. 248, 145 S.E. 73.
2. The application in this case to attach the defendant for contempt--having alleged that the applicant, together with other named persons, as executors of the estate of a named testatrix, had obtained a permanent injunction against the defendant restraining and enjoining her from going in, upon, or about the property belonging to the estate, and from abusing or in any manner interfering with the petitioners, their agents, servants, and employees in connection with their operation and use of the property comprising the estate, and that the applicant had since acquired title to a portion of the property formerly belonging to the estate, upon which the defendant had committed a trespass in violation of the injunction previously granted--stated a cause of action, and was not subject to the general demurrer of the respondent. The special demurrer to paragraph four calling for a more definite description of the lands claimed by the applicant and those owned by the applicant and appropriate amendment, and the special demurrer to paragraph five of the petition is without merit. The trial judge properly overruled the defendant's demurrers. See Poss v. Norris, 197 Ga. 513, 29 S.E.2d 705; Strickland v. Padgett, 197 Ga. 589, 590(12), 30 S.E.2d 167; Bloodworth v. Taylor, 208 Ga. 770, 69 S.E.2d 747.
3. Other attempted assignments of error contained in the bill of exceptions--(a) that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence over objection a paper tendered as a decree of the court rendered on a given date in a stated case, without setting out the provisions of the decree either literally or in substance in the exception, and the objection offered thereto; (b) that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence over objection a plat purporting to show the lands of the applicant, but failing to set the plat out in the objection or as an eshibit thereto; (c) that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness as to his knowledge of the boundary lines and ownership of the lands involved over the objection that it was hearsay, but failing to disclose the name of the witness or the substance of his testimony; (d) that the court erred in admitting two affidavits of witnesses upon the ground that the order nisi setting the hearing did not provide for the use of affidavits, and that the defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses testifying by affidavits, but which exception fails to give the names of the witnesses so testifying or to set out the contents of the affidavits or the substance thereof--are not in proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galloway v. Merrill, 19855
...Sumner v. Sumner, 186 Ga. 390(2), 197 S.E. 833, 834. Code, § 3-607; Gamble v. Gamble, 204 Ga. 82, 90(4), 48 S.E.2d 540; Nail v. Nail, 212 Ga. 299, 92 S.E.2d 109; Gamble v Gamble, 207 Ga. 380, 61 S.E.2d (b) A judgment sustaining a general demurrer to a petition, on the ground that the petiti......
- West v. Manning, 19267
-
Cobb v. De Long
...the document has been approved as correct by the trial judge. * * *' Perry v. Perry, 188 Ga. 477(1), 4 S.E.2d 184, quoted in Nail v. Nail, 212 Ga. 299, 92 S.E.2d 109. The approval by the trial judge of the brief of evidence on April 10, 1961, by nunc pro tunc order as of October 14, 1960, i......
-
Maxwell v. Hollis, 20132
...and insufficient to raise any question for decision by this court. Bruton v. Harrell, 151 Ga. 494(1), 107 S.E. 586, Nail v. Nail, 212 Ga. 299(3), 92 S.E.2d 109. The amended rule of 1957 amending Code, § 6-901 simply provides an alternative method for making a ground of a motion for new tria......