Legal Opinion

Dinsmore v. Holcomb

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 14, 1928No. 6318PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.

1. Considered in connection with the allegations of the petition as amended, as to description of the land sought to be recovered, the last amendment substituting the lot No. 697 for the lot No. 696 was not demurrable upon the ground that it added a new cause of action. Powell on Actions for Land, § 115; Venable v. Burton, 118 Ga. 156 (45 S. E. 29); Polhill v. Brown, 84 Ga. 338 (10 S. E. 921).

2. The action being complaint for land, brought in conformity to the pleading act of 1893 (Acts 1893, p. 56), Civil Code (1910), § 5539, and the defendant in his answer having disclaimed title or…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Polhill v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1890
  2. Venable v. BurtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mayor &C. of Athens v. GregorySupreme Court of Georgia · 1974
  2. Robinson v. YarbroughCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API