Doss v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Doss v. Miller

73 S.E.2d 354, 87 Ga. App. 237, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 656

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 21, 1952

Docket34303

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 S.E.2d 354 (Doss v. Miller) 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

Doss v. Miller, 73 S.E.2d 354, 87 Ga. App. 237, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 656 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, P. J.

The present case is controlled by the decision of this court in Doss v. Miller, ante. The exception here is to the overruling of the general demurrer of the defendants Arthur Doss and his wife, Mrs. Arthur Doss, to the petition of the plaintiff, the father of Virginia Ann Miller. This was a suit by the father of the injured child (the plaintiff in case No. 34302), and the allegations of the petition and [238]*238grounds of demurrer are identical, except that the plaintiff in the present case is seeking damages for injury to his child in the loss of her services and for medical expenses thereby incurred by reason of the alleged negligence of said defendants. Under the rulings in the case of the daughter (No. 34302), the trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer of these defendants to the petition in the present case.

Decided October 21, 1952. Dunaway, Howard & Embry, for plaintiffs in error. Moise, Post & Gardner, Fraser & Shelfer, Hugh E. Wright, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

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

Gardner, P. J.

The present case is controlled by the decision of this court in Doss v. Miller, ante. The exception here is to the overruling of the general demurrer of the defendants Arthur Doss and his wife, Mrs. Arthur Doss, to the petition of the plaintiff, the father of Virginia Ann Miller. This was a suit by the father of the injured child (the plaintiff in case No. 34302), and the allegations of the petition and [238]*238grounds of demurrer are identical, except that the plaintiff in the present case is seeking damages for injury to his child in the loss of her services and for medical expenses thereby incurred by reason of the alleged negligence of said defendants. Under the rulings in the case of the daughter (No. 34302), the trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer of these defendants to the petition in the present case.

Decided October 21, 1952. Dunaway, Howard & Embry, for plaintiffs in error. Moise, Post & Gardner, Fraser & Shelfer, Hugh E. Wright, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E.2d 354, 87 Ga. App. 237, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doss-v-miller-gactapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack