Brinkley v. Dixie Construction Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brinkley v. Dixie Construction Company

54 S.E.2d 510, 79 Ga. App. 583

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 11, 1949

Docket32416, 32417.

StatusPublished

This text of 54 S.E.2d 510 (Brinkley v. Dixie Construction 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

Brinkley v. Dixie Construction Company, 54 S.E.2d 510, 79 Ga. App. 583 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

This court certified to the Supreme Court the following question: “Under the Georgia Acts of 1943, p. 538, § 1, as codified in the 1933 Code Supp., § 74-204, does a bastard minor child or children, suing *584 by next friend; have the legal right to recover for the tortious death of the father?” The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative (205 Ga. 415, 54 S. E. 267). By virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in its answer to the certified question, this case is affirmed on the main bill of exceptions and the cross-bill of exceptions is dismissed.

Decided July 11, 1949. Oliver, Oliver & Davis, for plaintiff. Hitch, Morris, Harrison & Smith, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed on the main bill oj exceptions. Cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.

MacIntyre, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

This court certified to the Supreme Court the following question: “Under the Georgia Acts of 1943, p. 538, § 1, as codified in the 1933 Code Supp., § 74-204, does a bastard minor child or children, suing *584 by next friend; have the legal right to recover for the tortious death of the father?” The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative (205 Ga. 415, 54 S. E. 267). By virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in its answer to the certified question, this case is affirmed on the main bill of exceptions and the cross-bill of exceptions is dismissed.

Decided July 11, 1949. Oliver, Oliver & Davis, for plaintiff. Hitch, Morris, Harrison & Smith, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed on the main bill oj exceptions. Cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.

MacIntyre, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 S.E.2d 510, 79 Ga. App. 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brinkley-v-dixie-construction-company-gactapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack