Denton v. McMillan

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Denton v. McMillan

68 S.E. 615, 8 Ga. App. 84, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 32

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 19, 1910

Docket2470

StatusPublished

This text of 68 S.E. 615 (Denton v. McMillan) 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

Denton v. McMillan, 68 S.E. 615, 8 Ga. App. 84, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 32 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

The court properly allowed the amendment of the judgment. It was clearly a mere clerical error and amendable. Even without the amendment the process and judgment were valid. The law does not regard the middle name or initial of the middle name as material, unless there are two persons of the same name. Kelly v. Fudge, 2 Ga. App. 759 (59 S. E. 19); Hicks v. Riley, [86]*8683.Ga. 332 (9 S. E. 771). . Here the defendant removed all doubt of any mistake as to the identity of the person who was sued as a member of the firm of Denton, Pittman & Co., by stating that he was the member of the firm and he had been served personally with process. He had no doubt that he was the person sued, and must have-regarded'the incorrect giving.of the initial of his middle name.as a simple clerical error. In addition to his.knowledge, he was so informed by the copy of the petition served on him. The-misnomer did not mislead him, deprived him of no right, and resulted in no possible-injury to him. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

The court properly allowed the amendment of the judgment. It was clearly a mere clerical error and amendable. Even without the amendment the process and judgment were valid. The law does not regard the middle name or initial of the middle name as material, unless there are two persons of the same name. Kelly v. Fudge, 2 Ga. App. 759 (59 S. E. 19); Hicks v. Riley, [86]*8683.Ga. 332 (9 S. E. 771). . Here the defendant removed all doubt of any mistake as to the identity of the person who was sued as a member of the firm of Denton, Pittman & Co., by stating that he was the member of the firm and he had been served personally with process. He had no doubt that he was the person sued, and must have-regarded'the incorrect giving.of the initial of his middle name.as a simple clerical error. In addition to his.knowledge, he was so informed by the copy of the petition served on him. The-misnomer did not mislead him, deprived him of no right, and resulted in no possible-injury to him. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 S.E. 615, 8 Ga. App. 84, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denton-v-mcmillan-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack