Steele v. Cincinnati Insurance Company
307 S.E.2d 44
Ga. Ct. App.
1983
Check Treatment

STEELE v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY; and vice versa.

66059, 66060

Court of Appeals of Georgia

July 7, 1983

Rehearing denied July 25, 1983

171 Ga. App. 499 | 320 S.E.2d 229

Shulman, Chief Judge.

Edward D. Tolley, for appellant.

Harry N. Gordon, District Attorney, B. Thomas Cook, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

SHULMAN, Chief Judge.

Appellant sued appellee for malicious interference with contract. The trial court granted appellee‘s motion for a directed verdict and appellant filed an appeal “from the order . . . granting [appellee‘s] motion for a directed verdict.” Appellee cross appealed, enumerating as error the trial court‘s refusal to admit certain testimony into evidence.

1. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a) (Code Ann. § 6-803) provides that a “notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the appealable decision or judgment complained of . . .” “The notice of appeal must specify an appealable judgment from which the appeal is entered [cits.], absent which the appeal must be dismissed.”

;
. Unfortunately for appellant, an order granting a motion for a directed verdict is not an appealable judgment.
. Therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
.

2. Since there has been “no valid main appeal [filed] by [appellant] this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the cross appeal filed by [appellee] which must derive its life from the main appeal, already dismissed in Division 1 of this opinion.”

. See also
.

Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. McMurray, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

STEELE v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY; and vice versa.

66059, 66060

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Michael D. Goodman, for appellant.

Clifford J. Steele, pro se.

Edward L. Savell, Scott E. Tinnon, for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

Appellant argues vigorously on motion for rehearing that this court should accept jurisdiction of this appeal by a liberal construction of the rules of appellate procedure. See

. Unfortunately for appellant, we are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court cited in the opinion. In view of those decisions and of the very different procedural context of
, we do not feel compelled by the result in Wall to extend the ruling in Gillen in conflict with the above-cited Supreme Court decisions.

Motion for rehearing denied.