Hall v. Roehr & Co., 79 S.E. 379 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913). · Go Syfert
Hall v. Roehr & Co., 79 S.E. 379 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Hall
v.
Roehr & Company
4806.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Sep 23, 1913.
Published opinion
79 S.E. 379
1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 216
E. G. Hartsfield, for plaintiff in error. J. 0. Hale, contra.
Russell.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Russell, J.

“Where the only questions presented for review by this court arise upon rulings by'the court below on the trial of the issue raised by a special plea to the jurisdiction, which was not sustained by the verdict thereon returned, and it appears that neither a reversal of any one or more of such rulings nor a setting aside of §uch verdict would operate to terminate the main ease, but would leave the same still pending, the writ of error is premature and must be dismissed.” Ross v. Mercer, 115 Ga. 353 (41 S. E. 594). See also, State Mutual Association v. Kemp, 115 Ga. 355 (41 S. E. 652); Warren v. Blevins, 94 Ga. 215 (21 S. E. 459). Writ of error dismissed.