Petty v. Bryant
| Decision Date | 09 May 1939 |
| Docket Number | 12793. |
| Citation | 2 S.E.2d 910,188 Ga. 102 |
| Parties | PETTY et al. v. BRYANT, Sheriff, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
R Carter Pittman and Jack B. Ray, both of Dalton, for plaintiffs in error.
W G. Mann and W. E. Mann, both of Dalton, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
This was a proceeding against the principal and the surety on a ne exeat bond. The surety pleaded non-liability, contending that the principal had appeared in compliance with the conditions of the obligation, that a final judgment had been entered and that the bond was functus officio. There was no demurrer to either the petition or the plea. The surety by direct bill of exceptions assigns error on the action of the court in refusing to allow him 'to introduce any evidence whatsoever in support of his plea or answer or to be in any manner heard,' and on the judgment as 'contrary to law.' Held:
1. If a ruling or decision complained of as erroneous is one preceding the final judgment, and a proper specific assignment of error is made as to such antecedent ruling of decision, and the final judgment is also excepted to, not because of additional error in it, but because of the antecedent ruling which entered into and affected the further progress or final result of the case, a general exception to the final judgment in support of the specific exception to the antecedent ruling will suffice to give the reviewing court jurisdiction to determine such specific exception. Lyndon v. Ga. Ry. & Electric Co., 129 Ga. 353, 58 S.E 1047. The specific and general exceptions in this case were thus sufficient to require this court to determine whether the trial court erred in refusing to the defendant the right to support his plea by any evidence whatever, 'or to be in any manner heard.' Under such a ruling, which had all the effect of sustaining a general demurrer to the plea, the general rule that an assignment of error as to the exclusion of particular evidence must disclose, either literally or in substance, what the evidence was, has no application. As to this general rule, see Stone v. Hebard Lumber Co., 145 Ga. 729, 89 S.E. 814, and cit.; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 130 Ga. 460, 60 S.E. 1053; Brotherton v. Stricklin, 140 Ga. 610, 79 S.E. 459. The plea, if sustained by proof, having set forth a good defense, the ruling was error.
2. The statute requires that a bill of exceptions shall specify the decision complained of, and the alleged error. Code, §§ 6-901, 6-1607. Thus where, as here, exception is taken to a specific antecedent ruling as stated, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cone v. State
... ... evidence was illegally withheld. See Smith v. Smith, ... 133 Ga. 170, 65 S.E. 414; Barron v. Barron, 185 Ga ... 346, 194 S.E. 905; Petty v. Bryant, 188 Ga. 102, 2 ... S.E.2d 910. However this may be, it is true, as further ... insisted by the State, that evidence as to the character ... ...
-
Cheatham v. Palmer
... ... exception. Lyndon v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co., 129 ... Ga. 353, 58 S.E. 1047; Petty v. Bryant, 188 Ga. 102, ... 2 S.E.2d 910. The decree on this petition to reform a deed on ... account of mistake made the verdict for the ... ...
-
Baker v. Decatur Lumber & Supply Co.
...is sufficient to sustain exceptions to previous rulings in so far as they may enter into and affect the final judgment. Petty v. Bryant, 188 Ga. 102, 2 S.E.2d 910; Cheatham v. Palmer, 191 Ga. 617, 13 S.E.2d 674. Such assignment of error, however, is ineffective to test the sufficiency of th......
-
Hieber v. Buchanan
...amount of rent he should pay to the receivers by reason of the hotel properties having been destroyed by fire. The case of Petty v. Bryant, 188 Ga. 102, 2 S.E.2d 910, cited and relied upon by the receivers, is not in point In that case this court held that antecedent rulings could not be at......