Court Opinion

ID: 9582069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:22:05.769752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:25.570347
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellant’s motion misconstrues our citation of Turner v. Harper, 233 Ga. 483. We cited this case not as existing law but to *764support the proposition that supersedeas is a stay of proceedings in the trial court which can only come about legitimately when a statutory condition under which supersedeas is arrived at has been observed. Where there is no supersedeas pending appeal, the trial court has jurisdiction and may conduct further proceedings in the case.
We pointed out that the statutes provide two cases in which the appeal acts as a supersedeas. This is because Code § 6-1002 dealing with supersedeas in civil cases holds that in civil cases, “the notice of appeal filed as hereinbefore provided shall serve as a supersedeas, upon payment of all costs in the trial court by the appellant, and it shall not be necessary that a supersedeas bond be given . . .” (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus the filing of a notice of appeal “as hereinbefore provided” is a condition precedent to the grant of a supersedeas.
One of the two statutory methods of filing a notice of appeal so as to cause it to act as a supersedeas is that the notice of appeal be filed where the case is no longer pending in the trial court. Code § 6-701 (a) 1. Cohran v. Jones, the main case and a companion case on this appeal, is still pending and its notice of appeal was obviously not from a final judgment.
The other statutory method is when the notice of appeal is filed from an otherwise unappealable order, after the trial court’s certificate of review and this court’s grant of an interlocutory appeal. See Code § 6-701 (a) 2, which specifically specifies that such grant acts as a supersedeas. Code § 6-701 (a) 2 (B).
In no other case does the attempt to appeal a case by the filing of a notice of appeal act as a supersedeas. This contempt arose out of a failure to comply with an interlocutory order in the main case where an appeal of the main case was attempted. However, that attempted appeal was not from a final judgment and it was not one containing either a certificate of review or a grant from this court. Neither was it one of the specially enumerated proceedings mentioned in the statute. Therefore, it was a mere nullity.
The appeal in Cohran v. Carlin, was from disobedience of an order in the main case not invoking supersedeas in either of the ways it may presently be invoked. Thus the question of supersedeas had to be decided as though these statutes did not exist, since neither statutory method had been triggered. Turner simply stood for the proposition that where supersedeas is not in volved, the trial court has a discretionary power to proceed with the trial (but at his peril, of course, if the case is reversed on appeal).
Here there was no valid notice of appeal in the main case and the appeal was dismissed. The trial court therefore was not subject to the *765restrictions of a supersedeas and he did have jurisdiction to compel obedience to a further interlocutory order in the main case.
None of the cases cited in the appellant’s motion for rehearing indicates a different result, since in each of them there was in fact a valid appeal from a non-final judgment following a certificate of review by the trial court and the grant of an interlocutory appeal by this court, none of which appears in this record.

Motion for rehearing denied.