Turner v. Harper
| Decision Date | 07 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 29439,29439 |
| Citation | 211 S.E.2d 742,233 Ga. 483 |
| Parties | J. H. TURNER et al. v. Wayne W. HARPER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
H. Thad Crawley, Byrd, Groover & Buford, Garland T. Byrd, Butler, for appellants.
Richard T. Bridges, Thomaston, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendants appeal the denial of their motion to set aside a summary judgment on the ground that it was entered while an interlocutory order was pending on appeal in this court.
The history of the case is as follows: A motion to dismiss the petition seeking specific performance of a contract was overruled on March 15, 1973; the trial judge certified the question for review and the defendants appealed the order to the Court of Appeals. It was transferred to this Court and the appeal was dismissed on October 4, 1973. See Turner v. Harper, 231 Ga. 175, 200 S.E.2d 748. During the pendency of that appeal, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. This judgment was filed on May 7, 1973. The defendants' motion to set aside the summary judgment was filed September 11, 1974 and denied on September 25, 1974.
The general rule on supersedeas in civil cases 1 is that a properly filed notice of appeal serves 'as supersedeas, upon payment of all costs in the trial court by the appellant. . . .' Code Ann. § 6-1002. This automatic supersedeas deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to modify or alter the judgment in the case pending the appeal. Jackson v. Martin, 225 Ga. 170, 167 S.E.2d 135. However, this provision is only applicable to appeals from final judgments. Where an interlocutory appeal is certified for review in the appellate court, the trial court retains jurisdiction with discretionary power to proceed with the trial or enter any other order in the case pending the appeal. See Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Realty Trust Co., 139 Ga. 180, 186, 77 S.E. 86; Young v. Reese,119 Ga.App. 179, 166 S.E.2d 420. If an appellant wishes a supersedeas on an interlocutory appeal, he should seek one from the trial court under Code § 24-2616(1) or from the appellate court under its inherent power to grant supersedeas in such manner as it may determine to meet the ends of justice. Anything to the contrary in Leonard Bros. Trucking Co. Inc. v. Crymes Transports, Inc., 124 Ga.App. 341, 183 S.E.2d 773 and Hartman v. Brady,117 Ga.App. 828, 162 S.E.2d 246 is overruled.
There being no supersedeas in the previous appeal (231 Ga. 175), the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank South, N.A. v. Roswell Jeep Eagle, Inc.
...to do so and even compels it to do so when it is the appellee who requests it. The court relied for its ruling on Turner v. Harper, 233 Ga. 483, 211 S.E.2d 742 (1975), but that case as well as others such as Brown v. Wilson Chevrolet-Olds, 150 Ga.App. 525, 531(2), 258 S.E.2d 139 (1979), rec......
-
Cohran v. Carlin
...not error for the trial court to try the case while the overruling of defendants' motions to dismiss was on appeal. In Turner v. Harper, 233 Ga. 483, 211 S.E.2d 742 (1975), the trial court overruled defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and certified that order for interlocutory appea......
-
Philips Broadcast Equipment Corp. v. Production 70's, Inc.
...to modify or alter the judgment of the case pending on appeal. Ga.L.1965, pp. 18, 22 (Code Ann. § 6-1002(a)). See Turner v. Harper, 233 Ga. 483, 211 S.E.2d 742; Park v. Minton, 229 Ga. 765(4), 194 S.E.2d 465; Jackson v. Martin, 225 Ga. 170, 167 S.E.2d 135. This rule applies even to an order......
-
New v. Wilkins
...the trial court had authority to require the posting of a bond for interlocutory, discretionary appellate review, see Turner v. Harper, 233 Ga. 483, 211 S.E.2d 742 (1975), we conclude that in any event the court erred in determining that the father violated the The following discussion tran......