Stewart v. Stewart, 17435
| Decision Date | 15 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 17435,17435 |
| Citation | 65 S.E.2d 151,208 Ga. 83 |
| Parties | STEWART v. STEWART. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Frank A. Holden and Miller & Head, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Newell Edenfield, James K. Rankin and Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
In the suit of Ellen V. Stewart against George S. Stewart and Citizens Trust Company, for injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment, a verdict and judgment were rendered on December 12, 1950, declaring that the defendant George S. Stewart was indebted to the Citizens Trust Company in a named sum, and that Ellen V. Stewart was entitled to recover from Stewart a specified sum of money, and a further finding in favor of Citizens Trust Company on the plaintiff's prayer for equitable relief. On December 13, 1950, the defendant George S. Stewart filed a motion to set aside the verdict and judgment as a whole on several enumerated grounds. In this motion, Stewart also prayed that Citizens Trust Company be temporarily and permanently enjoined from transferring certain property upon which it held a security deed executed by George S. Stewart. A rule nisi was issued, requiring the plaintiff and Citizens Trust Company to show cause why the motion should not be granted. Service of this motion was acknowledged by Citizens Trust Company. Upon the hearing, the court sustained an oral motion of the plaintiff to dismiss said motion. The defendant George S. Stewart filed a bill of exceptions, seeking a reversal of the order of dismissal, naming as a party defendant only Ellen V. Stewart, the plaintiff. In the bill of exceptions now pending in this court, it does not appear that the Citizens Trust Company is named as a party defendant in error, nor that such defendant has been served with a copy of the bill of exceptions, nor that it is a party to the same. Held:
1. It is the duty of this court, with or without motion, to inquire into its jurisdiction, and to dismiss a writ of error where jurisdiction is lacking. Dobbs v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 187 Ga. 569, 1 S.E.2d 672; McDowell v. McDowell, 194 Ga. 88, 20 S.E.2d 602; Brockett v. Maxwell, 200 Ga. 213, 36 S.E.2d 638.
2. Malsby v. Shipp, 177 Ga. 54(1), 169 S.E. 308.
3. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitehead v. Alewine
...even in the absence of a motion to do so on that ground. Chandler v. Foote & Davies Co., 210 Ga. 370, 80 S.E.2d 292; Stewart v. Stewart, 208 Ga. 83(1), 65 S.E.2d 151; Lanier v. Bailey, 206 Ga. 161(2), 56 S.E.2d 515; Echols v. Southern Mining & Engineering Co., 200 Ga. 608, 37 S.E.2d 703; Po......
- Peavy v. General Securities Corp.
-
Still v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank
...(Code, § 6-1202); Emanuel Farm Co. v. Batts, 176 Ga. 552, 168 S.E. 316.' Malsby v. Shipp, 177 Ga. 54(1), 169 S.E. 308.' Stewart v. Stewart, 208 Ga. 83, 65 S.E.2d 151, 152. 3. In the present case Samual A. Still, Jr., being a joint maker of the note, had a right of contribution against Samua......
-
Kirby v. Woods
...or without motion, to inquire into its jurisdiction, and to dismiss a writ of error where jurisdiction is lacking.' Stewart v. Stewart, 208 Ga. 83, 84(1), 65 S.E.2d 151, 152; Chandler v. Foote & Davies Co., 210 Ga. 370, 80 S.E.2d 2. 'All parties who are interested in sustaining the judgment......