
    Montgomery v. Reynolds.
    Argued January 22,
    Decided February 21, 1906.
    Motion to dismiss the writ oí error.
    
      Henry Walicer, for plaintiff in error.
    
      B. T. Ponché and M. B. PubanTcs, contra.
   Lumpkin, J.

1. “A direct bill of exceptions to a ruling made pendente lite, which does not assign error upon any final judgment will not be entertained by this court.” Newberry v. Tenant, 121 Ga. 561; Kibben v. Coastwise Dredging Co., 120 Ga., 899; Harrell v. Tift, 70 Ga. 730; Trustees etc. v. Merchants and Planters National Bank, 62 Ga. 284; Barge v. Robinson, 115 Ga. 41.

2. In so far as the case of Haslcins v. Bank, 100 Ga. 216, and cases which follow it, are in- conflict with the ruling here made, they have been practically overruled. Kibben v. Coastwise Dredging Co., 120 Ga. 899-901.

3. In the case of Newberry v. Tenant, 121 Ga. 561, supra, it was held: “A statement in a bill oE exceptions, that ‘plaintiff excepts to said verdict and judgment as being contrary to law/ is not a valid assignment of. error and will not be considered by this court. . . Accordingly, where the only attempt to assign error upon a final judgment was ineffective for the reason stated in the first headnote above, and every other assignment of error was in the' form of a direct exception to a ruling made pendente lite, the writ of error must be dismissed.” The judgment was render-ed by a full bench, and is binding until reviewed and reversed, or modified. It is conclusive in the present case.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.  