Tomlinson v. Patrick
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Hawes, Justice.
1. The court did not err in overruling appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.
2. Contracts of the character with which we are here dealing are generally regarded by the courts as being of two kinds. In one kind the complaining party may be shown to have agreed with the decedent to go into the home of the decedent to nurse and to give "personal, affectionate and considerate attention, such as could not readily be procured elsewhere.” Such services are regarded as being so personal in character that they are of the kind that can normally only be rendered by a close relative…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Brogdon v. HoganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- Johns v. NixSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
- Potts v. MathisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1919
- Mann v. MoseleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1951
- Hudson v. HamptonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1964
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Housing Authority of Atlanta v. FambleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
- Stafford Enterprises, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- Roland v. ByrdCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- Ford v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2002