Herring v. RL MATHIS CERTIFIED DAIRY COMPANY

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Herring v. RL MATHIS CERTIFIED DAIRY COMPANY

166 S.E.2d 607, 119 Ga. App. 226, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1054

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 21, 1969

Docket43530, 43540

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 S.E.2d 607 (Herring v. RL MATHIS CERTIFIED DAIRY COMPANY) 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

Herring v. RL MATHIS CERTIFIED DAIRY COMPANY, 166 S.E.2d 607, 119 Ga. App. 226, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1054 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

In Bourn v. Herring, 225 Ga. 67, the Supreme Court reversed that part of the judgments of this court (118 Ga. App. 132), holding that the petition stated a claim against the defendants based on their lack of ordinary care. Accordingly, in compliance with the mandate of the Supreme Court, *227 the original judgments of this court are vacated and judgments are entered in conformity with that opinion which holds that “the petition in the instant case is sufficient to withstand the motions to dismiss because the issues of the liability of the defendants for wilful misconduct and want of ordinary capacity in the decedent remain to be determined by further proceedings.” Hn. 3.

Decided February 21, 1969. Freeman B. Hardisty, Frank Fuller, for appellant. Lokey & Bowden, Glenn Frick, O’Kelley, Hopkins & Van Gerpen, H. Lowell Hopkins, Long, Weinberg & Ansley, Palmer H. Ansley, John K. Dunlap, for appellees.

Judgment reversed in Case No. 43530; judgment affirmed in Case No. 43540.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

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

Quillian, Judge.

In Bourn v. Herring, 225 Ga. 67, the Supreme Court reversed that part of the judgments of this court (118 Ga. App. 132), holding that the petition stated a claim against the defendants based on their lack of ordinary care. Accordingly, in compliance with the mandate of the Supreme Court, *227 the original judgments of this court are vacated and judgments are entered in conformity with that opinion which holds that “the petition in the instant case is sufficient to withstand the motions to dismiss because the issues of the liability of the defendants for wilful misconduct and want of ordinary capacity in the decedent remain to be determined by further proceedings.” Hn. 3.

Decided February 21, 1969. Freeman B. Hardisty, Frank Fuller, for appellant. Lokey & Bowden, Glenn Frick, O’Kelley, Hopkins & Van Gerpen, H. Lowell Hopkins, Long, Weinberg & Ansley, Palmer H. Ansley, John K. Dunlap, for appellees.

Judgment reversed in Case No. 43530; judgment affirmed in Case No. 43540.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E.2d 607, 119 Ga. App. 226, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herring-v-rl-mathis-certified-dairy-company-gactapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack