TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Phillips v. Cuthbert Gin Co.

PHILLIPS v. CUTHBERT GIN COMPANY

Phillips v. Cuthbert Gin Co., 179 S.E. 774 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 19, 1935
Docket
No. 24460
Judges
Sutton
Citations
179 S.E. 77451 Ga. App. 1491935 Ga. App. LEXIS 606

Opinion of the Court — Sutton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Sutton, J.

In this case the trial judge sustained a demurrer to a portion of the defendant's plea and answer and struck the portion demurred to.. Exceptions pendente lite.were duly filed. There was no other judgment rendered in the case. On September 29, 1934, within thirty days from the rendition of the judgment sustaining the demurrer to a portion of defendant's answer, defendant filed his bill of exceptions, assigning error upon his exceptions pendente lite, reciting that the judgment sustaining the demurrer to certain paragraphs of his answer “had the effect of terminating the causes of action in the defenses contained in said sections, and terminated the rights of this defendant to plead further in the trial court unless same should be reversed by the Court of Appeals of this State, and said ruling was not and could not be a legal termination of the rights of the said defendant." No other ássignment of error or exception appears in the bill of exceptions.

A judgment of the trial judge, sustaining a demurrer to certain *150 paragraphs of defendant’s answer, and ordering the same stricken, is not a final judgment. A writ of error will not lie from such a judgment directly to this court; but the proper practice is to except to such judgment pendente lite, and then, upon the rendition of a final judgment in the cause and the suing out of a writ of error to review that judgment, to assign error upon such exceptions pendente lite. A bill of exceptions filed by the defendant in such a case, in which the sole exception is upon such exceptions pendente lite, is prematurely brought, as the case is still pending in the trial court. Milner v. Sunbeam, Heating Co., 44 Ga. App. 221 ( 160 S. E. 822 ) and cit. Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction.

Writ of error dismissed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 11942: 11949: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bagley v. Bagley20 S.E.2d 760 (Ga. 1942)
  2. Joyner v. Hamilton53 S.E.2d 133 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949)
  3. Overstreet v. Patterson187 S.E. 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Joyner v. Hamilton53 S.E.2d 133 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949)
  2. Bagley v. Bagley20 S.E.2d 760 (Ga. 1942)
  3. Overstreet v. Patterson187 S.E. 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Milner v. Sunbeam Heating Co., 160 S.E. 822 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list