Ross v. Mercer
| Decision Date | 26 April 1902 |
| Citation | 41 S.E. 594,115 Ga. 353 |
| Parties | ROSS v. MERCER |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
WRIT OF ERROR—DISMISSAL. Where the only questions presented for review by this court arise upon rulings by the court below on the trial of an issue raised by a special plea to the jurisdiction, which was not sustained by the verdict thereon returned and it appears that neither a reversal of any one or more of such rulings nor a setting aside of such verdict would operate to terminate the main case, but would leave the same still pending, the writ of error is premature, and must be dismissed. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from city court of Macon; W. D. Nottingham, Judge.
Action by J. J. Mercer against G. W. Rosa to revive a judgment. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Dismissed.
Marlon W. Harris and C. A. Glawson, for plaintiff in error.
Hardeman. Davis, Turner & Jones, for defendant in error.
LUMPKIN, P. J. A proceeding was instituted in the city court of Macon by Mercer against Mrs. Ross to revive a dormant judgment. The case came on for a hearing during the regular June term of that court. "The defendant had, at the first and appearance term of the court, filed a plea to the jurisdiction, " and "the issue which came on to be heard as aforesaid was this plea to the jurisdiction, other pleas being simultaneously filed, and a special issue made on [the] plea to the jurisdiction, the other issues not being tried." Upon this special issue the jury, under the direction of the court, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Thereupon Mrs. Ross sued out a bill of exceptions, assigning error upon the action of the court in directing the verdict, and upon various rulings made during the progress of the trial. Counsel for the defendant in error filed in this court a motion to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that the bill of exceptions was prematurely sued out, no final judgment having been rendered in the main case.
The ruling of this court in the case of Warren v. Blevins, 94 Ga. 215, 21 S. E. 459, is directly in point, and absolutely controlling upon the question presented by the motion to dismiss. It was contended by counsel for the plaintiff in error that Mrs. Ross had the right to bring the case here under section 5520 of the Civil Code, because, as insisted, the "judgment complained of, if it had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error, would have been a final disposition of the cause." Manifestly, this position is untenable. The only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peerless Laundry Co. v. Abraham
...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. See, also, Ross v. Mercer, 115 Ga. 353, 41 S.E. 594. 3. direct bill of exceptions to a ruling made pendente lite, which does not assign error upon any final judgment or a judgment w......
-
Douglas v. Hardin, (No. 5422.)
...into confusion, which was cleared and dissipated by the decision in the Lyndon Case. But even prior to that time, in Ross v. Mercer, 115 Ga. 353; 41 S. E. 594, Mr. Presiding Justice Lumpkin, citing Warren v. Blevins, 94 Ga. 215, 21 S. E. 459, pointed out the reason why a judgment merely aff......
-
H. W. Brown Transp. Co. v. Edgeworth
...746, 105 S.E. 292; Garman v. City of Atlanta, 55 Ga.App. 683, 191 S.E. 164; Crider v. Harris, 181 Ga. 555, 182 S.E. 592; Ross v. Mercer, 115 Ga. 353, 41 S.E. 594; Mutual Fertilizer Co. v. DeLoach, 73 Ga.App. 78, 35 S.E.2d 487. The order and judgment of the trial court in sustaining the plea......
-
Smith v. Estes
...case would still be pending until a final judgmentshould be entered therein. Warren v. Blevins, 94 Ga. 215, 21 S. E. 459; Ross v. Mercer, 115 Ga. 353, 41 S. E. 594; State Mutual Life Association v. Kemp, 115 Ga. 355, 41 S. E. 652. Under the facts of this case, it cannot be distinguished fro......