
    DUKE et al. v. STORY et al., executors.
    When a defendant against whom a verdict has been rendered makes a motion for a new trial, he can not properly, while the same is still pending and undisposed of, .bring to this court for review any ruling, order, or decision made by the judge during the progress of the case, or the judgment entered upon the verdict.
    Submitted Marcia 2,
    Decided March 27, 1901.
    Practice in the Supreme Court.
    
      Pike & Ayers and Strickland & Green, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      C. B. Henry, H. H. Perry, and Bussell & Armistead, contra.
   Lumpkin, P. J.

An action was brought by Story and others against M. N. Duke, to which M. J. Duke Was subsequently made a party defendant. A trial was had, a verdict for the plaintiffs was returned, and a judgment was entered thereon. The Dukes sued out a bill of exceptions alleging error in the rendition of this judgment. It appears, however, that they also filed a motion for a new trial, which was still pending when the bill of exceptions was certified. The case is therefore prematurely here, and the writ of error must be dismissed. Mitchell v. Tomlin, 64 Ga. 368; Williams v. Jones, 69 Ga. 277, s. c. Id. 757: McLendon v. W. & A. R. Co., 85 Ga. 129. Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concurring.  