From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fulford v. Fulford

Supreme Court of Georgia
Sep 8, 1969
170 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. 1969)

Opinion

25332.

SUBMITTED JULY 15, 1969.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1969.

Appellate procedure. Wheeler Superior Court. Before Judge O'Connor.

Wm. Malcolm Towson, for appellants.

Smith Harrington, Preston N. Rawlins, Jr., for appellees.


This appeal is from two rulings, dismissal of a citation for contempt and grant of relief from supersedes of a permanent injunction.

However, neither of these is an appealable judgment under the Appellate Practice Act. Ga. L. 1965, p. 18; 1968, pp. 1072, 1073 ( Code Ann. § 6-701). Neither is a final judgment (Par. (a) (1)), or one which the trial judge has certified for immediate review (Par. (a) (2)), or one with respect to summary judgment (Par. (a) (4)), as contemplated by such Act. Insofar as Paragraph (a) (3) is concerned, neither is among those expressly recited as appealable. In this connection, the ruling dismissing the citation for contempt is not a judgment involving an application "for discharge in ... contempt cases," and the ruling granting relief from supersedeas of a permanent injunction is not one "granting or refusing application for ... interlocutory or final injunction," or one "rendered after hearing, continuing in effect, modifying, vacating, or refusing to continue, modify or vacate a temporary restraining order."

In view of the non appealability of both of these rulings, the appeal must be

Dismissed. All the Justices concur.

SUBMITTED JULY 15, 1969 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1969.


Summaries of

Fulford v. Fulford

Supreme Court of Georgia
Sep 8, 1969
170 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. 1969)
Case details for

Fulford v. Fulford

Case Details

Full title:FULFORD et al. v. FULFORD et al

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Sep 8, 1969

Citations

170 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. 1969)
225 Ga. 510

Citing Cases

Wallace v. Graves

No certificate authorizing an immediate review was obtained and the appeal, not being from a judgment…

Klein v. Standard Fire Insurance Company

Defendant has not followed the required procedure for interlocutory review and consequently this direct…