Holloman v. Baird

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holloman v. Baird

135 S.E. 494, 36 Ga. App. 49, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 752

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 13, 1926

Docket17492

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 S.E. 494 (Holloman v. Baird) 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

Holloman v. Baird, 135 S.E. 494, 36 Ga. App. 49, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 752 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. “While the municipal court of Atlanta has jurisdiction of suits involving larger amounts than those formerly within the jurisdiction of the justice’s courts, the procedure in the municipal court of Atlanta, so far as the necessity for pleadings is concerned, does not differ from that of the justice’s courts.” Walker v. Cliff Drug Co., 23 Ga. App. 722 (2) (99 S. E. 392).

2. In the instant case, which was a suit begun by summons directed against the defendant, in the municipal court of Atlanta, for the sum of $23, “house rent for month of February, 1925,” the summons contained sufficient data to authorize an amendment curing the alleged defects of omission.

3. The court did not err in refusing to sanction the petition for certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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