Burns v. Burns
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtFelton, J.
The plaintiff in error contends that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the notice to produce because that notice was directed to Mrs. Lucille Day as an individual and not as natural guardian of the plaintiff in error. The contention is meritorious. The notice to produce was directed to “Mrs. Lucille Day, natural guardian of William C. Bums, Jr.” The description, “natural guardian of William C. Burns, Jr.,” was merely descriptio personae, and the notice was therefore directed to Mrs. Day individually and not in her representative capacity of natural guardian. Owsley & Son v.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Georgia Iron & Coal Co. v. Etowah Iron Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- N. Owsley & Son v. WoolhopterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1853
- Parish v. Weed Sewing Machine Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1887
- Stubbs v. Fourth National BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
- Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. HollisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.