From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

American Bank of Atlanta v. Gray

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 14, 1970
177 S.E.2d 208 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)

Opinion

45472.

ARGUED JULY 10, 1970.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 14, 1970.

Action on note. Spalding Superior Court. Before Judge Whalen.

Seay Sims, Marshall R. Sims, for appellant.

Smalley Cogburn, Robert H. Smalley, Jr., for appellees.


Whether this case be by "direct appeal or otherwise" (even though it is designated as a cross appeal to Gray v. American Bank of Atlanta, 121 Ga. App. 442, from the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the sole enumeration being on the denial of this judgment, it can only be reviewed by this court under Section 25 of the 1967 amendment to § 56 (h) of the Civil Practice Act (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 660; 1967, pp. 226, 238; Code Ann. § 81A-156(h)) wherein "the trial judge certifies that the order denying summary judgment ... should be subject to review" by direct appeal. Section 1(b) of Ga. L. 1965, p. 18 ( Code Ann. § 6-701(b)) is ineffective to give this court jurisdiction to review the case as an antecedent or ancillary ruling, since the amendment of 1968 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1072, 1073; Code Ann. § 6-701, supra) expressly states a review of the order shall be governed by Section 56(h) as amended, supra. Hood v. General Shoe Corp., 119 Ga. App. 649 ( 168 S.E.2d 326); Skylark Enterprises v. Marsh McLennan, 121 Ga. App. 235 (1) ( 173 S.E.2d 421). Since there is no certification in the record it cannot be reviewed, and it must be

Dismissed. Hall, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

ARGUED JULY 10, 1970 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 14, 1970.


Summaries of

American Bank of Atlanta v. Gray

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 14, 1970
177 S.E.2d 208 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)
Case details for

American Bank of Atlanta v. Gray

Case Details

Full title:AMERICAN BANK OF ATLANTA v. GRAY et al

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 14, 1970

Citations

177 S.E.2d 208 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)
177 S.E.2d 208

Citing Cases

J. H. Ewing Sons v. Montgomery

ling upon further proceedings, we nevertheless can make no disposition as to Montgomery's cross-appeal…

Bekins Van Lines Company v. Barlow

1. A review of a judgment with respect to motions for summary judgment is governed by § 56 (h) as amended, of…