City of Rome v. Selman

Supreme Court of Georgia

City of Rome v. Selman

69 S.E. 707, 135 Ga. 504, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 10

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 14, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 S.E. 707 (City of Rome v. Selman) 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

City of Rome v. Selman, 69 S.E. 707, 135 Ga. 504, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 10 (Ga. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where it was admitted that a written notice had been served under the act of December 20, 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 74), claiming damages on account of injury to a lot arising from grading by a municipal corporation, and the description, including boundaries by streets and other lots, showed clearly that the notice claimed damages on account of the lot described in the plaintiff’s petition beginning the suit, a mere -misdescription by which the lot was referred to in the notice as on the “northwest” side of a named street, while the petition alleged it to be on the southwest side thereof was immaterial, it not appearing that the plaintiff owned or was claiming damages on account of any other lot. Langley v. City Council of Augusta, 118 Ga. 592 (11), 600 (45 S. E. 486, 98 Am. St. R. 133).

[505]*505December 14, 1910.

Action for damages. Before Judge Wright. Floyd superior court. October 2, 1909.

W. J. Nunnally, Max Meyerhardt, Lipscomb, Willingham & Wright, and Nathan Harris, for plaintiff in error. W. M. Henry, contra.

2. Under sucli circumstances there was no error in charging that the notice was in its terms a sufficient compliance with the act of 1899.

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling- the motion for a new trial.

Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed; cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where it was admitted that a written notice had been served under the act of December 20, 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 74), claiming damages on account of injury to a lot arising from grading by a municipal corporation, and the description, including boundaries by streets and other lots, showed clearly that the notice claimed damages on account of the lot described in the plaintiff’s petition beginning the suit, a mere -misdescription by which the lot was referred to in the notice as on the “northwest” side of a named street, while the petition alleged it to be on the southwest side thereof was immaterial, it not appearing that the plaintiff owned or was claiming damages on account of any other lot. Langley v. City Council of Augusta, 118 Ga. 592 (11), 600 (45 S. E. 486, 98 Am. St. R. 133).

[505]*505December 14, 1910.

Action for damages. Before Judge Wright. Floyd superior court. October 2, 1909.

W. J. Nunnally, Max Meyerhardt, Lipscomb, Willingham & Wright, and Nathan Harris, for plaintiff in error. W. M. Henry, contra.

2. Under sucli circumstances there was no error in charging that the notice was in its terms a sufficient compliance with the act of 1899.

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling- the motion for a new trial.

Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed; cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 S.E. 707, 135 Ga. 504, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-rome-v-selman-ga-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack