Holliday v. Lacy

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holliday v. Lacy

163 S.E.2d 750, 118 Ga. App. 341, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 932

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 10, 1968

Docket43793

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 163 S.E.2d 750 (Holliday v. Lacy) 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

Holliday v. Lacy, 163 S.E.2d 750, 118 Ga. App. 341, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 932 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

1. A claim which was filed on October 24, 1967, to recover damages for an injury sustained on October 24, 1965, is barred by the statute of limitation. Code § 3-1004, as amended, Ga. L. 1964, p. 763; Davis v. Hill, 113 Ga. App. 280 (1) (147 SE2d 868); Peterson v. Ga. R. & Bkg. Co., 97 Ga. 798 (25 SE 370). The day the injury takes place must be counted in determining whether the claim is barred by the running of the statute and this is without regard to the time of day or fractions thereof. Dowling v. Lester, 74 Ga. App. 290 (39 SE2d 576).

2. The fact that the plaintiff’s husband had a separate claim for loss of consortium filed in the same court would have no effect upon the running of the statute of limitation in the case sub judice.

The order sustaining the motion to dismiss is

Affirmed.

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.

1. A claim which was filed on October 24, 1967, to recover damages for an injury sustained on October 24, 1965, is barred by the statute of limitation. Code § 3-1004, as amended, Ga. L. 1964, p. 763; Davis v. Hill, 113 Ga. App. 280 (1) (147 SE2d 868); Peterson v. Ga. R. & Bkg. Co., 97 Ga. 798 (25 SE 370). The day the injury takes place must be counted in determining whether the claim is barred by the running of the statute and this is without regard to the time of day or fractions thereof. Dowling v. Lester, 74 Ga. App. 290 (39 SE2d 576).

2. The fact that the plaintiff’s husband had a separate claim for loss of consortium filed in the same court would have no effect upon the running of the statute of limitation in the case sub judice.

The order sustaining the motion to dismiss is

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E.2d 750, 118 Ga. App. 341, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holliday-v-lacy-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack