McIntyre v. Habersham Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McIntyre v. Habersham Bank

95 S.E. 306, 22 Ga. App. 21, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 109

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 13, 1918

Docket8952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 306 (McIntyre v. Habersham Bank) 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

McIntyre v. Habersham Bank, 95 S.E. 306, 22 Ga. App. 21, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 109 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

Under the facts and procedure as here presented, it was,not error to vacate the previous judgment of the court and reinstate the case on the docket for trial. Civil Code (1910), § 5958. Ford v. Clark, 129 Ga. 292 (58 S. E. 818); Turner v. Jordan, 67 Ga. 604; East Tenn. Railway Co. v. Greene, 95 Ga. 35, 37, (22 S. E. 36); Gillespie v. Farkas, 19 Ga. App. 158 (91 S. E. 244).

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Luke, J., concur. J. M. Pitner, George M. DuBose, for plaintiff in error,

cited: Civil Code (1910), §§ 6221, 6278, 6280, 5965; Read Phosphate Co. v. Wells, 18 Ga. App. 656-7.

C. E. Sutton, contra,

cited: Civil Code (1910), §§ 4964, 4955, 6278; Hughes v. Coursey, 46 Ga. 116; East Tenn. &c. Ry. Co. v. Greene, 95 Ga. 37; McWilliams v. Standard &c. Co., 92 Ga. 438-9.

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