Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/Loudermilk v. Bailey

Loudermilk v. Bailey

126 S.E. 373, 159 Ga. 514, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 5
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 14, 1925·No. No. 4349·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

Tlie omission of a prayer for process is amendable. Lyons v. Planters’ Bank, 86 Ga. 485 (12 S. E. 882, 12 L. R. A. 155); BarnesFain Co. v. Chandler, 148 Ga. 158 (96 S. E. 179), and citations. Consequently the court erred in refusing to allow the amendment offered, adding a prayer for process, and in thereafter dismissing the action because there had been no legal process.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. Thomas A. Brown and B. L. Smith, for plaintiff. J. G. Collins, Pat Haralson, and T. 8. Candler, for defendant.

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

Loudermilk v. Bailey, 126 S.E. 373, 159 Ga. 514, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 5 (Ga. 1925).

126 S.E. 373 (Loudermilk v. Bailey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Purcell v. Hill
129 S.E.2d 341 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Bell v. Ayers
60 S.E.2d 523 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Crown Laundry v. Burch
53 S.E.2d 116 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Burch v. Crown Laundry
50 S.E.2d 768 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1948)