Harrison v. League

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harrison v. League

92 S.E.2d 604, 93 Ga. App. 730, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 844

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1956

Docket36157

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.E.2d 604 (Harrison v. League) 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

Harrison v. League, 92 S.E.2d 604, 93 Ga. App. 730, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 844 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, P. J.

This case is based upon the same transaction and the same pleading and evidence as in Harrison v. League, ante. The same parties are involved, the only difference being that in the preceding case, the plaintiff, by next friend G. 0. Harrison, is seeking recovery for injuries to himself, and in the case at bar G. 0. Harrison, the father of [731]*731Leonard Harrison, is seeking damages for the loss of services of his minor child, recovery of medical expenses, including hospitalization expense paid out on behalf of his injured son. For the reason set out in Harrison v. League, supra, we hold that the court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.

Decided April 9, 1956. Mixon & Chambers, for plaintiff in error. J. Walker Harper, Fulcher, Fulcher & Hagler, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

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

Gardner, P. J.

This case is based upon the same transaction and the same pleading and evidence as in Harrison v. League, ante. The same parties are involved, the only difference being that in the preceding case, the plaintiff, by next friend G. 0. Harrison, is seeking recovery for injuries to himself, and in the case at bar G. 0. Harrison, the father of [731]*731Leonard Harrison, is seeking damages for the loss of services of his minor child, recovery of medical expenses, including hospitalization expense paid out on behalf of his injured son. For the reason set out in Harrison v. League, supra, we hold that the court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.

Decided April 9, 1956. Mixon & Chambers, for plaintiff in error. J. Walker Harper, Fulcher, Fulcher & Hagler, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E.2d 604, 93 Ga. App. 730, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-league-gactapp-1956.