Weinstein v. Rothberg
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtCarlisle, J.
Under the provisions of Code § 81-1001, as amended by the Act of 1952 (Ga. L. 1952, pp. 243, 245), and the circumstances of this case, the exceptions pendente lite filed in this case, and upon which error is assigned in the bill of exceptions to this court, will'not be considered. In each of the rulings upon demurrer to which exceptions pendente lite were filed the trial court granted the plaintiff leave to amend and the plaintiff in each instance did amend. The Code section referred to above, amended, provides: “Where the court sustains any or all demurrers to pleading, and allows time for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Peeples v. PerryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
- Hill v. DanielCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Pelotte v. SimmonsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Ruffner v. DunlopCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Town of Kirkwood v. . NewburyNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
3Cited by21 opinions
- Adams v. RicksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
- Cuba v. Hudson & Marshall, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1994
- Nalley v. WhitakerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
- Motels, Inc. v. ShadrickCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
- Pappadea v. CliftonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.