Domingos v. Dessau

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Domingos v. Dessau

130 S.E. 544, 34 Ga. App. 575, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 422

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 18, 1925

Docket16597

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 130 S.E. 544 (Domingos v. Dessau) 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

Domingos v. Dessau, 130 S.E. 544, 34 Ga. App. 575, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 422 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. “A ruling of the court in disallowing an amendment to the pleading can not be made a ground of a motion for a new trial.” Simmons v. Lanford, 21 Ga. App. 686 (1) (94 S. E. 907) ; Brown v. Horn, 32 Ga. App. 96 (122 S. E. 710); Boyce v. Day, 3 Ga. App. 275 (1) (59 S. E. 930).

2. After verdict and judgment in favor of the landlord, in a distress-warrant proceeding, the tenant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted. The sole contention made by the plaintiff in error in this court being that the court erred in disallowing an amendment to the counter-affidavit, and the exception to . this ruling being contained only in the motion for a new trial, this court under the settled practice can not do otherwise than to affirm the judgment. However, a careful examination of the record has been made, and no error appears.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

1. “A ruling of the court in disallowing an amendment to the pleading can not be made a ground of a motion for a new trial.” Simmons v. Lanford, 21 Ga. App. 686 (1) (94 S. E. 907) ; Brown v. Horn, 32 Ga. App. 96 (122 S. E. 710); Boyce v. Day, 3 Ga. App. 275 (1) (59 S. E. 930).

2. After verdict and judgment in favor of the landlord, in a distress-warrant proceeding, the tenant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted. The sole contention made by the plaintiff in error in this court being that the court erred in disallowing an amendment to the counter-affidavit, and the exception to . this ruling being contained only in the motion for a new trial, this court under the settled practice can not do otherwise than to affirm the judgment. However, a careful examination of the record has been made, and no error appears.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 544, 34 Ga. App. 575, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/domingos-v-dessau-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack