Anderson v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Anderson v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company

132 S.E.2d 820, 108 Ga. App. 314, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 623

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 4, 1963

Docket40246

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 132 S.E.2d 820 (Anderson v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, 132 S.E.2d 820, 108 Ga. App. 314, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 623 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. An action brought in a Federal district court against a corporation and dismissed, because no diversity of citizenship existed under Federal statutes, cannot be again brought in a superior court of this State within six months under the provisions of Code § 3-808 so as to avoid the statute of limitation which had attached before the second suit was filed. See Constitution Pub. Co. v. DeLaughter, 95 Ga. 17 (21 SE 1000); Webb v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 131 Ga. 682 (63 SE 135); and Hendricks v. Southern R. Co., 17 Ga. App. 638 (87 SE 908).

2. The petition in the case sub judice showed on its face the facts set out above and the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer based upon the ground that the plaintiff’s right to recover was barred by the statute of limitation.

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur. Frank-um, J., disqualified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. An action brought in a Federal district court against a corporation and dismissed, because no diversity of citizenship existed under Federal statutes, cannot be again brought in a superior court of this State within six months under the provisions of Code § 3-808 so as to avoid the statute of limitation which had attached before the second suit was filed. See Constitution Pub. Co. v. DeLaughter, 95 Ga. 17 (21 SE 1000); Webb v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 131 Ga. 682 (63 SE 135); and Hendricks v. Southern R. Co., 17 Ga. App. 638 (87 SE 908).

2. The petition in the case sub judice showed on its face the facts set out above and the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer based upon the ground that the plaintiff’s right to recover was barred by the statute of limitation.

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur. Frank-um, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E.2d 820, 108 Ga. App. 314, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-southern-bell-telephone-telegraph-company-gactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack