*1 398 that, findings medical autopsy, opinion,
served at his the having spontaneous were not inconsistent with his heart attack rulings objections deposition some sort. to the (a) are not deposition erroneous because the should not be ex- (b) cluded in its entirety, objection, with or without trial court hearsay evidence, should not consider answers hypothetical questions based not on facts evidence. grant summary error.
Judgment reversed. Jordan, con- Pannell, J., specially. curs concurring Judge, opinion I concur in
Pannell, explanatory that some remarks written, necessary but feel are quotation Martin, view from Freeman v. App. it, see As I rule stated does re- 239 liability negligence, but, move where the loss of control is solely by physical caused the unforeseen attack on the conscious- proximate ness driver and this is the sole cause of the injury complained of, causing and the attack the unconscious- ness could not been foreseen by have the driver in the exercise ordinary care, negligence. there nois If the driver also negli- be gent way negligence in some and this contributing is a proximate injuries cause to complained of, may the driver be liable irrespective of physical the sudden attack causing unconscious- ness. stated, therefore, The rule should upon be based negligence absence of than rather non-liability negligence under the circumstances.
43911. HOGAN THE STATE. Bell, Presiding Judge. Defendant was convicted and sentenced August
on
22, 1967, for the
possessing
offense of
burglary
tools.
court overruled his motion for new trial on
January 30,
February
On
defendant filed motion
on the motion for new trial and on February
filed an
amendment to the motion for new trial, which had
previously
been
overruled.
March
On
the trial court en-
striking
tered an order
the amendment from the record and
filed notice
rehearing. Defendant
motion for
dismissing the
April Held:
on
(Ga.
pp.
Section 5
6-803)
part:
provides in
“A
amended;
Code
ap-
entry days filed
shall be
within 30
*2
.
.
complained of
. but
judgment
or
pealable decision
judgment,
of
a motion in arrest
trial,
a motion for new
or
when
has been
notwithstanding the verdict
judgment
or a
for
motion
entry
days after the
filed, the notice shall be filed within 30
finally dis-
overruling, or otherwise
granting,
of the order
January
of
judgment
court’s
posing of motion.”
trial
new
not set aside
1968, overruling the motion for
trial was
motion,
finally disposed
judgment
or vacated. As that
terms
comply
order
with clear
necessary,
it was
in
to
appeal
judgment
after the
days
to
notice of
within
Act,
file
(Code
an
under Section 6
was entered
to obtain
extension
6-804).
filing
appeal
is not
date
following a final
automatically
by proceedings
extended
in
judgment except
instances
set forth
those
(162
McQueen,
v.
Section 5 of the Act. Wilson
George E. Hains, General, Leverett, Solicitor Freeman Judge, concurring specially. Assembly The General Hall, Georgia intent of has stated amended, liberally Act of that the Act “shall be was bring construed decision merits every so as to about a case case.” appealed, any personally and to avoid dismissal I only precept during have tried to follow this since at my years four of service on this court a time when an appeal regardless my However, of error. form of a writ in the was in invitum decision of the opinion must follow personal I McQueen, v. Supreme Court Wilson in this criminal 313) dismissal and concur technicality. upon tickey case based Presiding Judge. Addendum. It is as elemental Appeals is decisions of the the Court of bound ABC that as it why is the case was written was. Supreme Court. That necessary. explanation other No COMPANY, REALTY INC. ATLANTIS GREENE Inc. filed a claim Judge. Realty Company, Atlantis Quillian, against Shirley for a commission due E. Grace H. Greene alleged for an breach of an exclusive sales contract. The filed a motion dismiss was overruled. defendants which appealed Defendant, Shirley Greene, F. and the case is here *3 for review. Held: judgment overruling the defendant’s motion to dismiss was
not a final record contains of the trial judgment; no order judge certifying had; that immediate review should be and question does not fall within the designated judgments from which an is permitted. Thus, apparent it is judgment appealed from does appealable judgment meet the criteria of an within the meaning of p. 18, Ga. L. 1968, pp. amended Ga. L. Lloyd Industries Steel, App. 377, O’Neal and cases therein cited. concur. Argued September
Lewis, Cagle, Lewis & Cagle, Hayes Robert W. McEvoy, & Randolph Hayes,
Joseph Abraham, Gershon, Ruden & Schwartz, David Ger- shon,