Simmons v. Scarborough

Decision Date03 October 1907
Citation58 S.E. 1037,129 Ga. 125
PartiesSIMMONS v. SCARBOROUGH.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

"A direct bill of exceptions to a ruling made pendente lite, which does not assign error upon any final judgment, though such a judgment was rendered, will not be entertained by this court." Kibben v. Coastwise Dredging Co., 120 Ga. 899, 48 S.E. 330.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 2, Appeal and Error, §§ 329, 344.]

Error from Superior Court, Lee County; Z. A. Littlejohn, Judge.

I. C. Scarborough obtained a fi. fa. on a judgment recovered against E. J. and L. B. Simmons. Mrs. L. B. Simmons filed an affidavit of illegality to the levy, and, from a judgment directing that the fi. fa. proceed, Mrs. Simmons brings error. Writ dismissed.

The plaintiff in error, Mrs. L. B. Simmons, filed an affidavit of illegality to the levy of a fi. fa. in favor of Scarborough, transferee of Byrom, against E. J. and L. B. Simmons. Upon the trial the plaintiff in error offered an amendment to her affidavit of illegality. The bill of exceptions recites that "the plaintiff generally demurred to the amendment and objected to the same, and the court sustained the demurrer and refused to allow the amendment; thereupon defendant then and there excepted, and now excepts and assigns the same as error, and, for cause of error, says that the amendment was sufficient in law and should have been allowed. The plaintiff then introduced the fi. fa. with the levy on the same, and closed. No other evidence. Verdict was had for the plaintiff, and judgment entered directing said fi. fa. to proceed." No other assignment of error is made in the bill of exceptions, except the one above quoted, complaining of the judgment refusing and disallowing the amendment.

Allen Fort & Son, H. L. Long & Son, and Lane, Maynard & Hooper, for plaintiff in error.

Shipp & Sheppard, for defendant in error.

BECK, J.

Writ of error dismissed. All the Justices concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Miami Cnty. Bank v. State ex rel. Peru Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 29, 1916
    ...L. Ry. Co. v. German Ins. Co., 44 Ind. App. 268, 87 N. E. 995;Fast v. State ex rel., 182 Ind. 606-608, 107 N. E. 465;Simmons v. Scarborough, 129 Ga. 125-131, 58 S. E. 1037. [6] The third paragraph of complaint is a suit upon the $5,000 bond of the defaulting administrator. By this paragraph......
  • Miami County Bank v. State ex rel. Peru Trust Company
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 29, 1916
    ... ... Co. v. German Ins. Co ... (1909), 44 Ind.App. 268, 87 N.E. 995; Fast v ... State, ex rel. (1915), 182 Ind. 606, 608, ... 107 N.E. 465; Simmons v. Scarborough ... (1907), 129 Ga. 125, 131, 58 S.E. 1037 ...          The ... third paragraph of complaint is a suit upon the $ 5,000 ... ...
  • Simmons v. Scarbor.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 3, 1907

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT