MacOn, Dublin Savannah Railroad Co. v. Porter

Court of Appeals of Georgia

MacOn, Dublin Savannah Railroad Co. v. Porter

23 S.E.2d 280, 68 Ga. App. 462, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 149

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 3, 1942

Docket29529.

StatusPublished

This text of 23 S.E.2d 280 (MacOn, Dublin Savannah Railroad Co. v. Porter) 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

MacOn, Dublin Savannah Railroad Co. v. Porter, 23 S.E.2d 280, 68 Ga. App. 462, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 149 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Brovles, .0. J.

1. "Under the Code of 1933, § 105-1302, stating when a widow or child may recover for the homicide of the husband or parent, and Park’s Code, § 3016, providing for the adoption of a child, where a minor child born in lawful wedlock and having a living father, but no mother, was legally adopted by his aunt on July 21, 1925, when section 3016 of Park’s Code was in force (the husband of said aunt not participating in the adoption and not being required to do so to make the adoption legal), and where the minor continued to live with his aunt as her adopted child, and where while so living his natural father was killed by the running of a railroad train in 1941, the minor at the time of the death of his natural father was the ‘child’ of the decedent within the meaning of the Code, § 105-1302-.”

2. The foregoing is the headnote of the Supreme Court in this case, and was written in answer to a question certified by this court. Applying the ruling to the facts of this case, the amended petition was not subject to the general demurrer; and the court properly so held. For the entire decision of the Supreme Court, see Macon, Dublin & Savannah-Railroad Co. v. Porter, 195 Ga. 40 (22 S. E. 2d, 818).

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Brovles, .0. J.

1. "Under the Code of 1933, § 105-1302, stating when a widow or child may recover for the homicide of the husband or parent, and Park’s Code, § 3016, providing for the adoption of a child, where a minor child born in lawful wedlock and having a living father, but no mother, was legally adopted by his aunt on July 21, 1925, when section 3016 of Park’s Code was in force (the husband of said aunt not participating in the adoption and not being required to do so to make the adoption legal), and where the minor continued to live with his aunt as her adopted child, and where while so living his natural father was killed by the running of a railroad train in 1941, the minor at the time of the death of his natural father was the ‘child’ of the decedent within the meaning of the Code, § 105-1302-.”

2. The foregoing is the headnote of the Supreme Court in this case, and was written in answer to a question certified by this court. Applying the ruling to the facts of this case, the amended petition was not subject to the general demurrer; and the court properly so held. For the entire decision of the Supreme Court, see Macon, Dublin & Savannah-Railroad Co. v. Porter, 195 Ga. 40 (22 S. E. 2d, 818).

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 S.E.2d 280, 68 Ga. App. 462, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macon-dublin-savannah-railroad-co-v-porter-gactapp-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack