Harrell Realty Co. v. Rowell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harrell Realty Co. v. Rowell

106 S.E. 307, 26 Ga. App. 413, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 186

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 8, 1921

Docket11947

StatusPublished

This text of 106 S.E. 307 (Harrell Realty Co. v. Rowell) 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

Harrell Realty Co. v. Rowell, 106 S.E. 307, 26 Ga. App. 413, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 186 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

When this ease was here before, the judgment of the trial court, overruling a general demurrer to the petition, was reversed (Rowell v. Harrell Realty Co., 25 Ga. App. 585 (103 S. E. 717). Upon the receipt of the remittitur by the trial court, but before it had been made the judgment of that court, the plaintiff offered an amendment to its original petition. This amendment was disallowed by the court, and the remittitur was then made the judgment of the lower court, and to both of these rulings the plaintiff excepted. An examination of the record shows that the proffered amendment was largely a mere amplification of the original petition, and that if the amendment had been allowed, the petition as so amended would still have failed to set forth a cause of action. It follows that the court did not err in disallowing the amendment.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, O. J.

When this ease was here before, the judgment of the trial court, overruling a general demurrer to the petition, was reversed (Rowell v. Harrell Realty Co., 25 Ga. App. 585 (103 S. E. 717). Upon the receipt of the remittitur by the trial court, but before it had been made the judgment of that court, the plaintiff offered an amendment to its original petition. This amendment was disallowed by the court, and the remittitur was then made the judgment of the lower court, and to both of these rulings the plaintiff excepted. An examination of the record shows that the proffered amendment was largely a mere amplification of the original petition, and that if the amendment had been allowed, the petition as so amended would still have failed to set forth a cause of action. It follows that the court did not err in disallowing the amendment.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E. 307, 26 Ga. App. 413, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrell-realty-co-v-rowell-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack