Legal Opinion

Thornton & Warren v. Cordell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided January 24, 1911No. 2750PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Action for damages; from city court of Hartwell — Judge Hodges. May 17, 1910.

1Opinion of the Court

Russell, .T.

1. The grounds of the amendment to the motion for new trial, not being formally approved by the presiding judge, can not be considered. The order signed by the judge “allowing” the amendment to the motion is not an.equivalent of the approval and verification which the law requires as to the statements of fact contained in the grounds of a motion for new trial.

2. Where the court permits an amendment to a petition after a demurrer lias been filed thereto, but before ruling upon the demurrer, the demurrer need not be again formally presented, in order to permit the filing of…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. Trammell v. ShirleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
  2. Camilla Cotton Oil Company and George M. Perry, Sr. v. Spencer Kellogg and Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
  3. Oxford v. ShumanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
  4. Ayers v. John B. Daniel Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
  5. Horne & Ponder v. O. B. & E. J. EvansCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API