Blau v. McCall Corp.

2 Citing cases

  1. Adams v. Ricks

    86 S.E.2d 329 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 15 times

    Weinstein v. Rothberg, 87 Ga. App. 94 ( 73 S.E.2d 106); Browning v. Hirsch, 87 Ga. App. 576 ( 75 S.E.2d 43); Cates v. Owens, 87 Ga. App. 270 ( 73 S.E.2d 345). Nothing to the contrary is held in the cases cited by the plaintiff in error. Blau v. McCall Corp., 85 Ga. App. 814 ( 70 S.E.2d 92), although decided after the passage of the act of 1952, dealt with orders passed before the passage of that act, and was accordingly decided under the law applicable at that time. Northern Assurance Co. v. Almand, 210 Ga. 243 ( 78 S.E.2d 788), dealt with two final order in two cases involving the same subject matter, the first order being res judicata as to the second.

  2. Brown v. Brown

    80 S.E.2d 2 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953)   Cited 14 times
    In Brown v. Brown, 89 Ga. App. 428 (4a) (80 S.E.2d 2) this court held: "The allowance or disallowance of an amendment to pleadings is not a proper ground of a motion for new trial."

    " Exceptions pendente lite were preserved to this last order only. Accordingly, under the Georgia rule (see Blau v. McCall Corp., 85 Ga. App. 814 (1), 70 S.E.2d 92), the interlocutory and conditional ruling of January 28 would have become the law of the case, and the defendant, not having complied therewith or excepted thereto, could not later object to the overruling of his plea for a stay. However, assuming that the first conditional ruling was not binding upon either the court or the parties when the matter was again brought up on June 1, 1953 (in which regard see Kinsella v. Kinsella, 353 Mo. 661, 183 S.W.2d 905), it appears that the defendant, who was at the time a resident of DeKalb County, was present in court and testified when the case proceeded to trial on that date. So far as the record shows, he did not on that date make any showing that his defense was "materially affected by reason of his military service," and no facts appear from which the finding of the court to the effect that his defense was not materially affected would appear an abuse of discretion.