TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Garman v. City of Atlanta

Garman v. City of Atlanta, 191 S.E. 164 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 9, 1937
Docket
No. 26036
Judges
Broyles, Guerry
Citations
191 S.E. 16455 Ga. App. 6831937 Ga. App. LEXIS 460

Opinion of the Court — Guerry

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

Guerry, J.

By this writ of error exception is taken to a judgment sustaining a plea of res judicata to the plaintiff’s action. The judgment recited: “Whereupon it is considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that the plea of res adjudicata be and the same is sustained.” It nowhere appears in the bill of exceptions that a final judgment was taken. Under the rulings of the Supreme Court in English v. Rosenkrantz, 150 Ga. 745 ( 105 S. E. 292 ), and Crider v. Harris, 181 Ga. 555 ( 182 S. E. 592 ), this was not such a final judgment as will support a direct bill of exceptions, as contemplated by the Code, § 6-701. Therefore the writ of error must be dismissed. Leave is granted to the plaintiff to treat as exceptions pendente lite the official copy of the bill of exceptions filed in the court below.

Writ of error dismissed, with direction.

MacIntyre, J., concurs.

Concurrence — Broyles

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

Broyles, O. J.,

concurring specially. The question whether the sustaining of a plea of res judicata is a “final” judgment is neither an open nor a doubtful one. Since the decision of the Supreme Court in English v. Rosenkrantz, 150 Ga. 745 (supra), rendered in 1920 (seventeen years ago), it has been known that the sustaining of such a plea is not a final judgment. And the rule is that “when in a given ease it should have been obvious that the writ of error was premature, this court will refuse an application to allow the bill of exceptions to be withdrawn and filed in the court below as exceptions pendente lite.” Burkhalter v. Roach, 145 Ga. 834 (4) ( 90 S. E. 52 )), and cit. I concur in the judgment of dismissal, but not in the other ruling of my colleagues.

How later courts describe this case

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

1939: 11947: 11954: 119392026peak 1939 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Forbes44 S.E.2d 692 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947)
  2. Loveless v. McCollum5 S.E.2d 582 (Ga. 1939)
  3. H. W. Brown Transportation Co. v. Edgeworth84 S.E.2d 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)

Most recent

  1. H. W. Brown Transportation Co. v. Edgeworth84 S.E.2d 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)
  2. W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Forbes44 S.E.2d 692 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947)
  3. Loveless v. McCollum5 S.E.2d 582 (Ga. 1939)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
English v. Rosenkrantz, 105 S.E. 292 (Ga. 1920) 44
Burkhalter v. Roach, 90 S.E. 52 (Ga. 1916) 20
Crider v. Harris, 182 S.E. 592 (Ga. 1935) 9

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