Case ID: ga_136/html/0242-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lumpkin, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Holtzendorff, administratrix, v. Dillard.
   Lumpkin, J.

At the time set for the hearing of a motion for a new trial a motion was made to dismiss it on various grounds. The presiding • judge said, that, if the motion were pressed, he would have to sustain it. Counsel for the party moving for a new trial moved for a postponement of the hearing to a later date, which was granted over objection by adverse counsel. “The court refused to then pass upon said motion to dismiss,” and by order continued the hearing to a later date. To this respondent filed a bill of exceptions, and brought the case here. Eeld, that this constituted no such final judgment as to authorize a direct bill of exceptions; and the judge not having passed upon the motion to dismiss, direct exception could not be taken on the ground that he erroneously overruled it, and that had he sustained it the judgment would have been final. On motion the writ of error must be dismissed.- Civil Code (1910), § 6138.

May 10, 1911.

Complaint. Before Judge Parker. Glynn superior court. March 8, 1910.

. J. D. Sparks, for plaintiff in error.

Hatton Lovejoy and Crovatt & Whitfield, contra.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.