Brown v. Verekas

Supreme Court of Georgia

Brown v. Verekas

139 S.E. 344, 164 Ga. 733, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 266

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 9, 1927

DocketNo. 5797

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 139 S.E. 344 (Brown v. Verekas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Verekas, 139 S.E. 344, 164 Ga. 733, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 266 (Ga. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Hilu, J.

V. obtained a judgment against B. in the municipal court of Atlanta. B. filed against V. a petition for injunction and to vacate the judgment, on the ground that “through inadvertence and providential [734]*734hindrance ho has been denied his day in court, by reason of the fact that at the time said case came on for hearing in the municipal court of Atlanta petitioner’s attorney was sick in bed and unable to be in court, and that said sickness prevented his attorney from knowing said case was so assigned for trial, and petitioner was thus deprived of his knowledge that the case was so assigned, . . that he has a perfect defense to the cause of action, if he is allowed to appear in court and plead to the merits of the suit,” etc. Nothing was alleged to the effect that the counsel was unable to notify the court of his condition. Held, that the petition did not set out a cause of equitable relief, and that the court did not err in dismissing the action on demurrer, and in dissolving the temporary restraining order. Sims v. Sims, 135 Ga. 439 (2) (69 S. E. 545) ; Atkinson v. First National Bank, 138 Ga. 127 (2) (74 S. E. 1030). Judgment affirmed.

[733]*733Judgments, 34 O. J. p. 317, n. 52; p. 329, n. 52.

[734]*734No. 5797. September 9, 1927. John W. Thomas and J. 8. Hall, for plaintiff. T. J. Ripley and IF. M. Bailey, for defendant. All the Justices eonew.

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

Hilu, J.

V. obtained a judgment against B. in the municipal court of Atlanta. B. filed against V. a petition for injunction and to vacate the judgment, on the ground that “through inadvertence and providential [734]*734hindrance ho has been denied his day in court, by reason of the fact that at the time said case came on for hearing in the municipal court of Atlanta petitioner’s attorney was sick in bed and unable to be in court, and that said sickness prevented his attorney from knowing said case was so assigned for trial, and petitioner was thus deprived of his knowledge that the case was so assigned, . . that he has a perfect defense to the cause of action, if he is allowed to appear in court and plead to the merits of the suit,” etc. Nothing was alleged to the effect that the counsel was unable to notify the court of his condition. Held, that the petition did not set out a cause of equitable relief, and that the court did not err in dismissing the action on demurrer, and in dissolving the temporary restraining order. Sims v. Sims, 135 Ga. 439 (2) (69 S. E. 545) ; Atkinson v. First National Bank, 138 Ga. 127 (2) (74 S. E. 1030). Judgment affirmed.

[733]*733Judgments, 34 O. J. p. 317, n. 52; p. 329, n. 52.

[734]*734No. 5797. September 9, 1927. John W. Thomas and J. 8. Hall, for plaintiff. T. J. Ripley and IF. M. Bailey, for defendant. All the Justices eonew.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E. 344, 164 Ga. 733, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-verekas-ga-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack