Colonial Hill Co. v. Humphries

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Colonial Hill Co. v. Humphries

128 S.E. 16, 34 Ga. App. 59, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 35

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1925

Docket16318

StatusPublished

This text of 128 S.E. 16 (Colonial Hill Co. v. Humphries) 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

Colonial Hill Co. v. Humphries, 128 S.E. 16, 34 Ga. App. 59, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 35 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Colonial Hill Company sued Mrs. Humphries on promissory notes in the municipal court of Atlanta. To her answer denying indebtedness demurrers were urged. Upon the conclusion of the evidence a verdict was directed in favor of the defendant. Petition for certiorari was sanctioned, and upon the hearing the certiorari was overruled. Held: The trial court having properly overruled the demurrers to the answers of which complaint is made in the exceptions pendente lite of the defendant, and the evidence having demanded the verdict and judgment complained of, the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. George B. Bush, for plaintiff. Mitchell &■ Mitchell, for defendant.

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

Luke, J.

Colonial Hill Company sued Mrs. Humphries on promissory notes in the municipal court of Atlanta. To her answer denying indebtedness demurrers were urged. Upon the conclusion of the evidence a verdict was directed in favor of the defendant. Petition for certiorari was sanctioned, and upon the hearing the certiorari was overruled. Held: The trial court having properly overruled the demurrers to the answers of which complaint is made in the exceptions pendente lite of the defendant, and the evidence having demanded the verdict and judgment complained of, the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. George B. Bush, for plaintiff. Mitchell &■ Mitchell, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.E. 16, 34 Ga. App. 59, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colonial-hill-co-v-humphries-gactapp-1925.