Mandle v. Mandle

Supreme Court of Georgia

Mandle v. Mandle

98 S.E. 261, 148 Ga. 700, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 36

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 12, 1919

DocketNo. 908

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 S.E. 261 (Mandle v. Mandle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mandle v. Mandle, 98 S.E. 261, 148 Ga. 700, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 36 (Ga. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Fisii, C. J.

On the hearing of demurrers'to the petition in this case the following order was passed: “The demurrers, general and special, are sustained, and the petition dismissed, unless within 20 days the plff. show substantially the sums going into said transactions, and the dates and payments on same.” Within the twenty days an amendment to the petition was offered, and the following order was granted: “The above and foregoing amendment is hereby allowed and ordered filed, by the court, subject to demurrer.” Subsequently the demurrant moved that an order be granted dimissing the case as to the demurrant, in accordance with the first order granted in the case. This motion was. overruled. Held, that the amendment substantially complied with the first order, and it was not error to refuse to dismiss the case on the motion made. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Fisii, C. J.

On the hearing of demurrers'to the petition in this case the following order was passed: “The demurrers, general and special, are sustained, and the petition dismissed, unless within 20 days the plff. show substantially the sums going into said transactions, and the dates and payments on same.” Within the twenty days an amendment to the petition was offered, and the following order was granted: “The above and foregoing amendment is hereby allowed and ordered filed, by the court, subject to demurrer.” Subsequently the demurrant moved that an order be granted dimissing the case as to the demurrant, in accordance with the first order granted in the case. This motion was. overruled. Held, that the amendment substantially complied with the first order, and it was not error to refuse to dismiss the case on the motion made. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E. 261, 148 Ga. 700, 1919 Ga. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandle-v-mandle-ga-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack