Norman & Harrell v. Great Western Tailoring Co.

49 S.E. 782, 121 Ga. 813, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 79
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 28, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 49 S.E. 782 (Norman & Harrell v. Great Western Tailoring Co.) 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
Norman & Harrell v. Great Western Tailoring Co., 49 S.E. 782, 121 Ga. 813, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 79 (Ga. 1905).

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. Without exceptions pendente lite and an assignment of error thereon, a ruling made on. August 10 can not be brought under review by a bill of exceptions tendered February 27 following.

2. Where a demurrer is filed to a suit upon an account, on the ground that no. sufficient bill of particulars is attached, and the judge gives plaintiff ten days within which to amend to meet this objection, arid the plaintiff does so amend, there is no error in subsequently refusing to dismiss the action on the ground that, the defendant was not served with a copy of the amendment.

3. Where after the first term the defendant offers to file his answer, and the same is refused by the court on the ground that the case is in default, and the record is silent as to whether the case had been marked in default on [814]*814the docket, this court will presume in favor of the ruling of the court below that such entry had been made.

Argued December 16, 1904. — Decided January 28, 1905. Complaint. Before Judge Covington. City court of Moultrie. February 8, 1904. W. F. Way, for plaintiffs in error. Shipp & Klim, contra.

4. Where the defendant in a suit upon an account is in default, it is unnecessary, under Civil Code, § 5078, for the plaintiff to make out his case by proof.

Judgment affirmed.

AU the Justices concur.

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

Related

Hoffman International Corp. v. Overstreet
140 S.E.2d 79 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Owen v. Piel Paint Co.
110 S.E.2d 437 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Wallis v. McMurray
86 S.E.2d 529 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Grogan v. Herrington
54 S.E.2d 284 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Beavers v. Williams
33 S.E.2d 343 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1945)
Davies v. Turner
6 S.E.2d 356 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Hayes v. International Harvester Co.
183 S.E. 197 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Haley v. Block
93 S.E. 148 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Horn v. Mound City Paint & Color Co.
64 S.E. 666 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)
Thurmond v. Groves & Co.
55 S.E. 915 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 S.E. 782, 121 Ga. 813, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-harrell-v-great-western-tailoring-co-ga-1905.