Opinion
17178.
JULY 12, 1950.
REHEARING DENIED JULY 24, 1950.
Complaint for land, etc. Before Judge Rowland. Laurens Superior Court. March 30, 1950.
C. C. Crockett and W. W. Larsen, for plaintiffs.
W. Wright Abbot, Nelson Nelson, and Lester F. Watson, for defendants.
1. The order and judgment of the trial court, refusing to dismiss the interventions and to declare the intervenors forever barred from asserting any interest in the property involved in the litigation, was not a final disposition of the cause, and would not have been final as to any of the plaintiffs in error if it had been rendered as contended by them. In either event, the main case would, as to them, still be pending in the trial court. Therefore, the writ of error must be dismissed as being prematurely brought to this court. Code (Ann. Supp.), § 6-701; Johnson v. Holmes, 150 Ga. 195 ( 103 S.E. 157); Jackson v. Fite, 165 Ga. 382 ( 140 S.E. 754); Ray v. Anderson, 117 Ga. 136 ( 43 S.E. 408); Wikle v. Jones, 131 Ga. 37 ( 61 S.E. 1124); Walker v. Walker, 147 Ga. 614 ( 95 S.E. 10); Edwards v. Bynum, 48 Ga. App. 149 ( 172 S.E. 117); Bagley v. Bagley, 194 Ga. 154 ( 20 S.E.2d 760).
2. Leave is granted to the plaintiffs in error to file, as exceptions pendente lite, the official copy of the bill of exceptions retained in the office of the clerk of the trial court. Johnson v. Holmes, 150 Ga. 195 (2) (supra); Taylor v. Taylor, 186 Ga. 667 (2) ( 198 S.E. 678).
Writ of error dismissed, with direction. All the Justices concur.
No. 17178. JULY 12, 1950. REHEARING DENIED JULY 24, 1950.
On April 1, 1946, Lee Pope, W. T. Pope, and Nathan Pope filed their petition against Pope Stanley and Melton Pope, alleging that the plaintiffs and the defendants were tenants in common of a described tract of land in Laurens County, Georgia, both claiming title under a common grantor, F. C. Pope. It was alleged: that the plaintiffs owned a one-sixth share in the land as children of T. W. Pope, a brother of F. C. Pope, deceased; that there were many other heirs of the said F. C. Pope, whose names and addresses were unknown to the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs alleged that as they became known the plaintiffs desired the privilege of amending and making them parties to the proceedings; and that the defendants had taken exclusive possession of the land, and had committed certain acts of waste thereon. The plaintiffs prayed: that they recover severally their interest in the land, and their proportional part of the rents, profits, and waste committed by the defendants; that, when this is determined, the court retain the case for partitioning, and render complete relief to the plaintiffs, including partition of the land; for such other and further relief as is proper; and for process.
The defendants filed their separate answers on June 5, 1946. Thereafter certain parties, who, together with the plaintiffs in the original petition, are designated as plaintiffs in error in this case, intervened and were made parties plaintiff; and thereafter, on June 19, 1948, these parties petitioned the court for an appropriate order for equitable intervention and service by publication upon all parties interested in the litigation, whereupon the court entered the following order:
"It appearing to the court that you are interested in the above cause pending in this court and the assets involved in this litigation and in particular lot of land 343 in the 22nd District of Laurens County, it is ordered that all parties claiming an interest in said assets intervene in the cause not later than April 1, 1948, else the court will proceed according to law with the parties that are before the court. This action is an equitable ejectment and a partitioning proceeding involving distribution of assets that may be in court and in which you may be interested. This January 19, 1948."
Thereafter, on May 5, 1948, and January 19, 1950, various other parties, who, together with the defendants in the original proceeding, are named as defendants in error in the present bill of exceptions, alleging themselves to be heirs at law of F. C. Pope, and as such owning an interest in the land described, filed their interventions, seeking to be made parties to the cause. These interventions were allowed by the trial court, subject to demurrer, and the parties therein named were made parties plaintiff.
On January 10, 1950, the plaintiffs in the original petition and the original intervenors filed their petition with the trial court, setting out substantially the facts above recited, and alleging that the intervenors whose interventions were filed subsequently to April 1, 1948, were barred from any interest in said assets, and are not entitled to any relief whatsoever; and prayed for an order adjudicating that such intervenors are forever barred from asserting any interest in the property and assets involved in the litigation. A rule nisi was issued on this motion or petition, returnable on January 19, 1950. This petition or motion was heard on March 30, 1950, at which time the trial court entered the following judgment:
"The within motion or application coming on for hearing on this date, and after due consideration thereof, it is ordered that the prayers of the plaintiffs be and are hereby overruled and denied, and the interventions heretofore filed and allowed are approved and confirmed. So ordered this 30th day of March, 1950."
To this judgment the plaintiffs in error except, and the defendants in error have moved to dismiss the writ of error upon the grounds: (1) the decision or judgment complained of was not a final disposition of the cause, which is still pending in the trial court; (2) the decision or judgment complained of was not final as to any material party thereto; (3) the bill of exceptions or writ of error was prematurely sued out: (4) the "decision or judgment" complained of is not such a final judgment as defined by law to which a direct bill of exceptions will lie while the cause is still pending in the court below.
It appears from the record that the main case is still pending in the trial court, and that there has been no trial or adjudication of the rights, title, or claims of the plaintiffs, and that there are no assets in the hands of the court to be administered, marshaled, or otherwise disposed of by the court.