Hill v. First National Bank
HILL v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF REYNOLDS
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Bloodworth, J.
The foregoing headnote is a copy of the headnote in an opinion of the Supreme Court in answer to questions certified to it by this .court. For the full opinion of the Supreme Court, including the certified questions, see 160 Ga. 883 ( 129 S. E. 285 ). Under the ruling of the Supreme Court the judge of the superior court had jurisdiction, on March 4, 1922, to dismiss the motion for a new trial. The motion having been dismissed, and this judgment not having been excepted to, it became the law of the case, and the judge did not err in his order of November 10, 1923, in which the then-pending motion for a new trial was “overruled and denied and dismissed.”
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.