Helmly v. Schultz

Supreme Court of Georgia

Helmly v. Schultz

134 S.E.2d 810, 219 Ga. 594, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 337

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 22, 1964

Docket22315

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 S.E.2d 810 (Helmly v. Schultz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Helmly v. Schultz, 134 S.E.2d 810, 219 Ga. 594, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 337 (Ga. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Candler, Justice.

This is the second appearance of this litigation in the .Supreme Court. When here before it was held, without direction or condition, that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition on general demurrer. See Helmly v. Schultz, 219 Ga. 201 (131 SE2d 924). After that affirmance, but before the remittitur from this court was made the judgment of the trial court, the petitioner offered an amendment to his petition which was disallowed on the ground that the decision of this court terminated the case. The plaintiff excepted to this ruling. Held:

Under repeated rulings of this court the judgment excepted to is not erroneous. When the amendment was offered, there was [595]*595nothing pending in the court to amend. See Redwine v. Frizzell, 185 Ga. 191 (194 SE. 175); and Duvall v. Cox, 217 Ga. 488 (123 SE2d 546), and the cases there cited.

Submitted January 14, 1964 Decided January 22, 1964. Aaron Kravitch, for plaintiff in error. Stephens & Gignilliat, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Candler, Justice.

This is the second appearance of this litigation in the .Supreme Court. When here before it was held, without direction or condition, that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition on general demurrer. See Helmly v. Schultz, 219 Ga. 201 (131 SE2d 924). After that affirmance, but before the remittitur from this court was made the judgment of the trial court, the petitioner offered an amendment to his petition which was disallowed on the ground that the decision of this court terminated the case. The plaintiff excepted to this ruling. Held:

Under repeated rulings of this court the judgment excepted to is not erroneous. When the amendment was offered, there was [595]*595nothing pending in the court to amend. See Redwine v. Frizzell, 185 Ga. 191 (194 SE. 175); and Duvall v. Cox, 217 Ga. 488 (123 SE2d 546), and the cases there cited.

Submitted January 14, 1964 Decided January 22, 1964. Aaron Kravitch, for plaintiff in error. Stephens & Gignilliat, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E.2d 810, 219 Ga. 594, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helmly-v-schultz-ga-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack