Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Atkinson v. Lam Amusement Co.

Atkinson v. Lam Amusement Co.

195 S.E. 156, 185 Ga. 379, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 423
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 14, 1938·No. No. 12147·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Grice, Justice.

This ease is controlled, by the ruling in Rose Theatre Inc. v. Lilly, 185 Ga. 53 (193 S. E. 866), wherein it was held that it was not error to overrule a demurrer to the petition brought by the solicitor-general, containing allegations very similar to those made in this petition, and which are substantially set forth in the accompanying statement of facts. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. W. Y. Atkinson, solicitor-general, L. L. Meadors, and Moon & Ray, for plaintiffs. Wyatt & Morgan and Lovejoy & Mayer, for defendants.

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

Atkinson v. Lam Amusement Co., 195 S.E. 156, 185 Ga. 379, 1938 Ga. LEXIS 423 (Ga. 1938).

195 S.E. 156 (Atkinson v. Lam Amusement Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Evans Theatre Corporation v. Slaton
180 S.E.2d 712 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Forehand v. Moody
36 S.E.2d 321 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Waller v. Lanier
30 S.E.2d 925 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Rosser v. Lam Amusement Co.
196 S.E. 404 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)