lawskills
Google
search the Web search LawSkills.com
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
HOOD v. GENERAL SHOE CORPORATION et al.
44421.
PANNELL, Judge.
Appellate procedure. Houston Superior Court. Before Judge Culpepper.
General Shoe Corporation, plaintiff in fi. fa., filed an appeal and Angie Hood, claimant, filed what she designated a cross appeal, which recited that claimant "files this her cross appeal and appeals to the Court of Appeals of Georgia from the order of the Superior Court of Houston County, Georgia, denying her motion for summary judgment filed as to her claim in this matter, said order and judgment of the court being dated February 19, 1969." The only enumeration of error complains of the overruling of the motion for summary judgment. in its brief, the appellee suggests the dismissal of this case. Held:
1. Treating the appeal as a direct appeal from the overruling of the motion for summary judgment (a proper certificate therefor having been obtained from the trial judge), the appeal is premature, the appeal having been filed one day before the judgment appealed from was entered. See Gibson v. Hodges, 221 Ga. 779 (147 SE2d 329).
2. Should we treat the appeal as a cross appeal we would be unable to pass upon the sole enumeration of error as the overruling of a motion for summary judgment may be reviewed only upon a direct appeal from that judgment. Section 25 of the Act of 1967 (Ga. L. 1967, pp. 226, 238; Code Ann. 81A-156 (h)) amending Section 56 (h) of the Civil Practice Act of 1966, pp. 609, 660; and Section 1, Paragraph 4 of the Act of 1968 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1072, 1073; Code Ann. 6-701). The direct appeal from the judgment here overruling the motion for summary judgment being ineffective to give this court jurisdiction as shown in Division 1 of this opinion, we have no jurisdiction to review the sole enumeration of error on cross appeal.
3. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.
R. T. Spencer, Henry G. Smith, Jr., for appellees.
Jones, Cork, Miller & Benton, Wallace Miller, Jr., for appellant.
SUBMITTED APRIL 7, 1969 -- DECIDED MAY 9, 1969.
Tuesday October 7 10:38 CDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com