Carey v. Wyatt

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Carey v. Wyatt

87 S.E. 770, 17 Ga. App. 517, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 742

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 21, 1916

Docket6512

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 770 (Carey v. Wyatt) 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

Carey v. Wyatt, 87 S.E. 770, 17 Ga. App. 517, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

The judge of the city court did not err in vacating and setting aside that portion of the judgment which included attorney’s fees, it appearing undisputed in the record that the statutory notice of intention to include ten per cent, for attorney’s fees, as required by section 4252 of the Civil Code, failed to state the name of the holder of the note; and, this not being an amendable defect, that portion of the judgment was absolutely void and rendered the judgment open to attack, under section 5957 of the Civil Code. Baskins v. Valdosta Bank, 5 Ga. App. 600 (4), 601 (63 S. E. 648); Edenfield v. Bank of Millen, 7 Ga. App. 645 (3), 648 (67 S. E. 896); Gelders v. Kennedy, 9 Ga. App. 389, 390 (71 S. E. 503 ) The proceeding to set aside the judgment was not too late, as it was brought within three years from the rendition of the same. See Civil Code, § 4358. Judgment affirmed.

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

Broyles, J.

The judge of the city court did not err in vacating and setting aside that portion of the judgment which included attorney’s fees, it appearing undisputed in the record that the statutory notice of intention to include ten per cent, for attorney’s fees, as required by section 4252 of the Civil Code, failed to state the name of the holder of the note; and, this not being an amendable defect, that portion of the judgment was absolutely void and rendered the judgment open to attack, under section 5957 of the Civil Code. Baskins v. Valdosta Bank, 5 Ga. App. 600 (4), 601 (63 S. E. 648); Edenfield v. Bank of Millen, 7 Ga. App. 645 (3), 648 (67 S. E. 896); Gelders v. Kennedy, 9 Ga. App. 389, 390 (71 S. E. 503 ) The proceeding to set aside the judgment was not too late, as it was brought within three years from the rendition of the same. See Civil Code, § 4358. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 770, 17 Ga. App. 517, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carey-v-wyatt-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack