Case ID: ga-app_34/html/0484-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodworth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

15637.
    HILL v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF REYNOLDS.
    Where, during vacation, the attorney for the movant in a motion for a new trial prepares a written order for the judge’s signature, setting the motion for a new trial for a hearing at a certain time and place in vacation, and at the appointed time and place the attorneys for both parties appear, and the respondent moves to dismiss the motion for a new trial, and the movant in the motion for new trial resists the motion to dismiss, on grounds other than that the court is without jurisdiction, and the judge sustains the motion to dismiss, the judgment of dismissal will not be void as having been rendered without jurisdiction.
    Decided November 10, 1925.
    Motion to set aside judgment; from Taylor superior court— Judge Munro. March 4, 1924.
    Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.
    
      Jere M. Moore, ~W. D. Crawford, C. B. Marshall, for plaintiff' in error.
    
      Homer Beeland, Jule Felton, contra.
   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.