Dunn & McCarthy Inc. v. Pinkston

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dunn & McCarthy Inc. v. Pinkston

175 S.E. 663, 49 Ga. App. 408, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 418

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 21, 1934

Docket22762

StatusPublished

This text of 175 S.E. 663 (Dunn & McCarthy Inc. v. Pinkston) 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

Dunn & McCarthy Inc. v. Pinkston, 175 S.E. 663, 49 Ga. App. 408, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 418 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The Supreme Court having in this ease (Dunn & McCarthy Incorporated v. Pinkston, 179 Ga. 31 (175 S. E. 4)) reversed the judgment of this court (47 Ga. App. 514, 170 S. E. 922), affirming the judgment of the trial court striking an amendment to the defendant’s plea, this court now vacates its former judgment of affirmance of the judgments of the trial court striking the amendment to the defendant’s plea and overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

2. This.court therefore, in accordance with the ruling and judgment of the Supreme Court, reverses the judgment of the trial court striking the amendment to the defendant’s plea. The trial court having erred in striking the amendment to the defendant’s plea, the subsequent proceedings which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff were nugatory; and this court therefore reverses the judgment of the trial court overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

3. Since the judgments of this court affirming the judgments of the trial court overruling the demurrer to the petition and in allowing the amendment to the petition are not affected by the ruling and judgment of the Supreme Court, this court reiterates and ratifies its rulings in the para[409]*409graphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in this case as reported in 47 Ga. App. 514 (supra), and affirms the judgments of the trial- court overruling the demurrer to the petition and allowing the amendment to the petition.

Decided August 21, 1934. B. L. Maynard, for plaintiff in error. James A. Fort, John A. Fort, contra.

4. The rulings of this court made in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of this case, as formerly reported in 47 Ga. App. 514 (supra), are superseded.by the ruling and judgment of the Supreme Court reversing the judgment of this court.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Jenhms, P. J., and Sutton, J., conctir.

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

Stephens, J.

1. The Supreme Court having in this ease (Dunn & McCarthy Incorporated v. Pinkston, 179 Ga. 31 (175 S. E. 4)) reversed the judgment of this court (47 Ga. App. 514, 170 S. E. 922), affirming the judgment of the trial court striking an amendment to the defendant’s plea, this court now vacates its former judgment of affirmance of the judgments of the trial court striking the amendment to the defendant’s plea and overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

2. This.court therefore, in accordance with the ruling and judgment of the Supreme Court, reverses the judgment of the trial court striking the amendment to the defendant’s plea. The trial court having erred in striking the amendment to the defendant’s plea, the subsequent proceedings which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff were nugatory; and this court therefore reverses the judgment of the trial court overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

3. Since the judgments of this court affirming the judgments of the trial court overruling the demurrer to the petition and in allowing the amendment to the petition are not affected by the ruling and judgment of the Supreme Court, this court reiterates and ratifies its rulings in the para[409]*409graphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in this case as reported in 47 Ga. App. 514 (supra), and affirms the judgments of the trial- court overruling the demurrer to the petition and allowing the amendment to the petition.

Decided August 21, 1934. B. L. Maynard, for plaintiff in error. James A. Fort, John A. Fort, contra.

4. The rulings of this court made in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of this case, as formerly reported in 47 Ga. App. 514 (supra), are superseded.by the ruling and judgment of the Supreme Court reversing the judgment of this court.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Jenhms, P. J., and Sutton, J., conctir.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.E. 663, 49 Ga. App. 408, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-mccarthy-inc-v-pinkston-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack