Legal Opinion
Peerless Woolen Mills v. Pharr
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided September 27, 1946No. 31409PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSutton, P. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The plaintiff in error contends that the court erred in overruling its objection to the plaintiff’s amendments to the petition, on the ground that they set out a cause of action new and distinct from that declared on.in the original petition. There is no merit in this contention. The cause of action declared on in the petition was the contraction by the plaintiff of the occupational or industrial disease of dye or soap poisoning, whereby he was injured, as the proximate result of specified acts of negligence of the defendant in failing to furnish the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bailey v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Ellison v. Georgia RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- City of Columbus v. AnglinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Kreigh v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Sadowski v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1944
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Genesco, Inc. v. GreesonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- Thigpen v. Executive CommitteeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Jackson v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
- Genesco, Inc. v. GreesonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- Hughes v. KistlerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.