Bennett v. C. I. T. Corp.

1 S.E.2d 76, 59 Ga. App. 427, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 49
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 2, 1939
Docket27172
StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.E.2d 76 (Bennett v. C. I. T. Corp.) 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
Bennett v. C. I. T. Corp., 1 S.E.2d 76, 59 Ga. App. 427, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Opinion

Guerry, J.

An attachment bond signed John Doe, agent or attorney at law for Richard Roe, is amendable, by allowing the bond to be signed Richard Roe, by his agent or attorney at law, John Doe. Long v. Hood, 46 Ga. 225; Whitley v. Jackson, 34 Ga. App. 286 (6) (129 S. E. 662), and cit. The court did not err in allowing the amendment.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Related

Long v. Hood
46 Ga. 225 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1872)
Whitley v. Jackson
129 S.E. 662 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 S.E.2d 76, 59 Ga. App. 427, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-c-i-t-corp-gactapp-1939.