Hinson v. Mutual Fertilizer Co.

91 S.E. 241, 19 Ga. App. 121, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 9
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 23, 1917
Docket7473
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 241 (Hinson v. Mutual Fertilizer Co.) 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
Hinson v. Mutual Fertilizer Co., 91 S.E. 241, 19 Ga. App. 121, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 9 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. The 3d paragraph of the defendant’s plea set up the only defense interposed. The court passed an order sustaining a special demurrer to this paragraph, unless the defendant should by amendment, on or before a specified date, cure the defects pointed out in the demurrer, and providing that “upon the defendant’s filing amendment by said time, covering the defects pointed out in said answer, . . said special demurrer be overruled.” No exception pendente lite was filed, but, within the time fixed hy the order, the defendant offered an amendment, which clearly failed to meet the objections raised by the demurrer, and the court rejected the amendment and thereafter directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The bill of exceptions was certified more than 30 days after the judgment on the demurrer.

(or) The order sustaining-the demurrer under the condition named therein, not being excepted to within the time and in the manner provided hy law, fixed the law of the case to that extent; and since the amendment offered by the defendant did not comply with the terms of the order, the court did not err in rejecting the amendment.

2. The only real defense set up by "the plea having been stricken, the court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

George and Luhe, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Georgia Ports Authority v. Pushay
157 S.E.2d 765 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Watson v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.
167 S.E. 718 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Higgins v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.
166 S.E. 456 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Davis v. Farmers & Traders Bank
136 S.E. 816 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Smith v. Bugg
133 S.E. 49 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Atlantic Refining Co. v. Peerson
120 S.E. 652 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Grossman v. City of Atlanta
102 S.E. 847 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Scott v. Wells
99 S.E. 315 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Baker v. City of Atlanta
96 S.E. 332 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Marbut v. Southern Railway Co.
95 S.E. 1021 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 S.E. 241, 19 Ga. App. 121, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinson-v-mutual-fertilizer-co-gactapp-1917.