Universal Match Corp. v. Hendricks

Counsel for the plaintiff argues that the motion to file the declaration nunc pro tunc should have been allowed. The affidavit, bond and attachment shows on its face that it was executed and filed February 23, 1955, and was returnable to the March term, 1955, of the trial court. Counsel cites a number of cases in support of his contention that the case should be reversed. Counsel cites and quotes from Bailey v. Kennett, 32 Ga. App. 255 (122 S. E. 804). That case is not in point because the facts there as compared with the facts in the instant case do not warrant that ruling superseding the…