Holtzendorf v. McNeil
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action for damages; from city court of Valdosta'—Judge Cranford. February 7, 1920. Tbe action was against a dentist, for alleged negligence of an agent or employee in his office, in extracting two teeth.
Read the full summary
Action for damages; from city court of Valdosta'—Judge Cranford. February 7, 1920. Tbe action was against a dentist, for alleged negligence of an agent or employee in his office, in extracting two teeth. The trial resulted in a verdict against the defendant, for $500. On the trial a witness for the plaintiff testified that he had been practicing dentistry since 1905. In one of the grounds of the motion for a new trial it is stated that this witness “was permitted to testify before the jury, in response to a question by plaintiff’s counsel in regard to the value of a tooth alleged to have been…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam.
1. The judge may supply omissions in a bill of exceptions by interlineation or note, if the interlineation or note does not have the effect of showing that some of the averments in the bill of exceptions are untrue. Jarriel v. Jarriel, 115 Ga. 23 (41 S. E. 262). Thus, a note by the judge, not in conflict with the averments made in the bill of exceptions, to the following effect, “ At the trial term an oral motion was made by defendant’s counsel to dismiss plaintiff’s petition, upon the ground that no cause of action was set out, same was overruled, and no exceptions pendente lite…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Central Railroad v. WolffSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885
- Jarriel v. JarrielSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Bailey & Co. v. OgdenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885
- Crump v. KnoxCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
3Cited by2 opinions
- McLean v. Eaton Manfg. Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1938
- Clackler v. BarnwellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951