Mutual Fertilizer Company v. Deloach

ON MOTION EOR REHEARING.

Counsel for the movant contend that the verdict and judgment against its plea to the jurisdiction in the lower court was a fina] judgment from which a writ of error will lie, although the main *79case might not have been disposed of. They cite Hanjaras v. Kilpatrick, 7 Ga. App. 464 (67 S. E. 130), Ray v. Hicks, 146 Ga. 685 (92 S. E. 48), and Williams v. Mann, 188 Ga. 212 (3 S. E. 2d, 557). These cases do not sustain counseFs contentions. In the llanjaras case a motion was made to dismiss the suit because of alleged defects appearing upon the face of the pleadings. In the…