Lewis v. Daniel
Supreme Court of Georgia
Consolidation of cases. Before Judge Cole. Bibb Superior Court. May Term, 1871. A more extended statement of the facts than is contained in the opinion is unnecessary. A motion to dismiss this writ of error because the cases were still pending below, was overruled. Defendants should not have to pay double costs: Code, section 3196 says cases “may” be consolidated.
Read the full summary
Consolidation of cases. Before Judge Cole. Bibb Superior Court. May Term, 1871. A more extended statement of the facts than is contained in the opinion is unnecessary. A motion to dismiss this writ of error because the cases were still pending below, was overruled. Defendants should not have to pay double costs: Code, section 3196 says cases “may” be consolidated. “May” means “shall:” Potters’ Dwarris on Statutes, 221, 223; Saunders’ Eeport, 58. The defense to both cases was the same as averred, and the motion was demurred to: 13 Ga. R., 201.
1Opinion of the Court
Montgomery, Judge.
This was a motion, by plaintiff in error, to consolidate two cases, brought against him by defendant in error. The one case was a suit on an agreement between them, as partners, whereby plaintiff in error bound himself, in certain contingencies, to refund money to defendant in error. The contingencies happened, and suit was brought. The other was a suit on a note, given by plaintiff in error to the defendant in error, and for some $300 of rent, collected by plaintiff in error for defendant in error. The petition was to consolidate the two cases, because “ said two papers…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. GardnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Spinks v. LaGrange Banking & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1925
- Dublin Veneer Co. v. KendrickSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
- Railroad Commission v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1922
- Anderson v. GerdingU.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia · 1879
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.