Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

COOGLER v. BERRY, by Next Friend. COOGLER

EBERHARDT, Judge.

Where, pending an action the defendant died and the executor of his last will and testament was substituted as party defendant, as provided by Code Ann. § 81A-125, the person named as executor is not individually a party to the action and he may not appeal from a judgment entered adversely to the executor. "[O]nly a party to the case can appeal from a judgment" ( McCoy v. Sasnett, 77 Ga. App. 819, 821 ( 49 S.E.2d 913)), or one who has sought to become a party, as by way of intervention under Code Ann. § 81A-124, and has been denied the right to do so. And see White v. Williamson, 44 Ga. App. 428 (2) ( 161 S.E. 654); Stewart v. Stewart, 106 Ga. App. 211 ( 126 S.E.2d 716); Compton v. Weekes, 107 Ga. App. 283 ( 129 S.E.2d 824); Alexander v. Fontenot, 113 Ga. App. 36 ( 147 S.E.2d 25); Eubank v. Barber-Colman Co., 115 Ga. App. 217 (1) ( 154 S.E.2d 638). The notice of appeal cannot be amended to substitute a new party. Bivens v. Todd, 222 Ga. 84 (2) ( 148 S.E.2d 424).

Consequently, where the only notice of appeal in these cases was entered in his individual capacity by the person named as executor of the will of the deceased defendant, no valid appeal pends before us and the appeals must be

Dismissed. Felton. C. J., and Whitman, J., concur.

SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 5, 1968 — DECIDED APRIL 8, 1968.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

COOGLER v. BERRY
(Apr 8, 1968)