Summary
In Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 460 (3) (99 S.E.2d 905) it is held: "A judgment of a trial court, which after a writ of error stands unreversed, or to which no exception has been taken, is the law of the case."
Summary of this case from Hickman v. FrazierOpinion
19759.
SUBMITTED JULY 8, 1957.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 6, 1957.
Injunction. Before Judge Harrison. Chatham Superior Court. April 15, 1957.
Shelby Myrick, Ralph L. Crawford, for plaintiffs in error.
Frank S. Cheatham, Jr., contra.
1. "If a judgment or decree is erroneous or illegal, direct exception should be taken to it at the proper time." Barber v. Barber, 157 Ga. 188 (1) ( 121 S.E. 317); City of Atlanta v. Carroll, 194 Ga. 172 (3) ( 21 S.E.2d 86).
2. A bill of exceptions to the final judgment rendered upon the trial of a case must be tendered within 30 days from the date of such final judgment. Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., pp. 279, 280 (Code, Ann., § 6-902).
3. "A judgment of a trial court, which after a writ of error stands unreversed, or to which no exception has been taken, is the law of the case." Palmer v. Jackson, 188 Ga. 336, 338 ( 4 S.E.2d 28); Ballard v. Harmon, 202 Ga. 603, 605 ( 44 S.E.2d 260).
4. In the present case the motion was not one to vacate or set aside the decree (see Code § 3-702), but was a motion to "amend" after the time for excepting thereto had expired. The motion to amend was therefore properly denied.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
SUBMITTED JULY 8, 1957 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 6, 1957.
A verdict was returned for the plaintiffs, and a decree enjoining the maintenance of an alleged nuisance by the defendants (the present plaintiffs in error) was duly entered. Their motion for a new trial was denied, and that judgment was affirmed by this court. Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 125 ( 97 S.E.2d 313).
After a judgment upon the remittitur from this court, the plaintiffs in error filed a motion to amend the decree. It was alleged: "That the aforesaid decree does not conform to the pleading, the evidence and the verdict for the reason that it is too broad in scope and does not confine itself to the nuisance complained of," and "said decree is further vague and indefinite" for stated reasons.
The motion to amend was denied, and the exception here is to that judgment.