Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. Wells
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Atkinson, Presiding Justice.
While the law requires, with certain exceptions, that a plaintiff bring his action'for his full claim against the defendant, nevertheless this requirement, being primarily for the benefit of the defendant, may be waived by him, and the same rule applies regardless of whether the action is ex contractu or ex delicto. McDonald v. Tison, 94 Ga. 549 (20 S. E. 427); Georgia Ry. & Power Co. v. Endsley, 167 Ga. 439 (2), 446 (145 S. E. 851); Teat v. Westmoreland, 19 Ga. App. 60 (90 S. E. 1025); James v. Emmco Insurance Co., 71 Ga. App. 196, 200 (30 S. E. 2d, 361). See also…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. EndsleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
- Thompson v. WatsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Bloodworth v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
- Baker v. JewellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Happy Valley Farms Inc. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hogan v. HermannIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
- Gregory v. SchnursteinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1956
- Atkinson v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1985
- Lynn v. Wagstaff Motor Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
- Williams v. WorkCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2010
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.