Legal Opinion

Slaton v. Hinman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 3, 1919No. 10444PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court—Judge Ellis. January 24,1919.

1Opinion of the CourtBroyles, P. J.

1. Where in a suit upon an account a bill of particulars is not attached, and a demand therefor is made by the defendant, and subsequently, by amendment allowed, a bill of particulars is set out, this amendment need not be served upon the defendant; and the plaintiff does not lose a term of the court because the bill of particulars was not attached in the first instance to the account sued on. Section 6269 of the Civil Code has been superseded by section 5628 thereof. Moore v. Hendrix, 144 Ga. 646 (2) (87 S. E. 915) ; Rea v. McGahee, 12 Ga. App. 326 (77 S. E. 204).

2. It does not affirmatively…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Moore v. Hendrix & HodgesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
  2. Rea v. McGaheeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
  3. Arnold-Forrest Horse & Mule Co. v. FleemanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Fremont Emergency Services, LTD. v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API