Legal Opinion · Concurrence

London v. Atlanta Transit Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 15, 1955No. 35490Published

1ConcurrenceFelton, C. J.

I concur in the judgment and the rulings in divisions one and two of the opinion. I concur specially in the ruling in division three. The trial judge is not required to allow time for an amendment where he takes demurrers to a petition under advisement and renders judgment at chambers when there is no request for time in which to amend, as in this case. Ripley v. Eady, 106 Ga. 422 (32 S. E. 343); Tinsley v. Maddox, 176 Ga. 471 (168 S. E. 297); Higgins v. Otis Elevator Co., 69 Ga. App. 584 (26 S. E. 2d 380). Where a request is made for time in which to amend and no opportunity to amend is…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ripley v. Eady & MayfieldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
  2. Lytle v. DeVaughnSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888
  3. Tinsley v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  4. Wells v. Butler's Builders' Supply Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1907
  5. Higgins v. Otis Elevator Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1943

2 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