Legal Opinion

Millhollan v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 6, 1967No. 42991PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Deen, Judge.

Certain rulings qn demurrers will be considered first. The plaintiff’s petition was amended several times and twice completely rewritten. The first two enumerations of error deal with the sustaining of demurrers by Neal and Watkins Motor Lines to the petition as first presented and prior to the times at which new petitions were substituted. These rulings were acquiesced in by' the amendments in compliance with the court’s orders unless such result is inhibited by that part of Code Ann. § 81-1001 which reads: “Either party who amends or attempts to amend his petition or other…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Southern Railway Co. v. HarbinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
  2. Roadway Express Inc. v. McBroomCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
  3. Central Railroad v. BrinsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883
  4. Strickland v. EnglishCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
  5. Wade v. DrinkardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Foster v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
  2. Georgia Stainless Steel Corp. v. BaconCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
  3. Jenkins v. RaifordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
  4. Cohen v. GarlandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
  5. Cohen v. GarlandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API