Park v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Park v. Moore

162 S.E. 155, 44 Ga. App. 538, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 366

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1932

Docket21371

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 162 S.E. 155 (Park v. Moore) 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

Park v. Moore, 162 S.E. 155, 44 Ga. App. 538, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 366 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

On March 19, 1930, the court rendered judgment sustaining the defendant’s demurrer and dismissing the plaintiff’s petition “unless plaintiff amends his petition within ten days from this date by setting up a bill of particulars, in which case it' is overruled.” No exception to that ruling was taken. On March 29, 1930, the plaintiff filed with the clerk what purported to be a proffered amendment, setting up matters in the nature of a bill of particulars; but the record discloses no order allowing the amendment, or other matter tending to show that the amendment was in any way brought to the attention of the court during the term at which the conditional judgment on the demurrer was rendered. Because of these facts of record, it must be held that the plaintiff’s petition was properly dismissed on demurrer, and all proceedings in the ease at and after a subsequent term of the court were nugatory. Kumpe v. Hudgins, 39 Ga. App. 788 (149 S. E. 56) ; Pasco Flour Mills Co. v. City Supply Co., 23 Ga. App. 95 (97 S. E. 558) ; Pratt v. Gibson, 96 Ga. 807 (23 S. E. 839).

Judgment reversed'.

Broyles, O. J., concurs. Bloodioorih, J., alisent on account of illness.

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

Luke, J.

On March 19, 1930, the court rendered judgment sustaining the defendant’s demurrer and dismissing the plaintiff’s petition “unless plaintiff amends his petition within ten days from this date by setting up a bill of particulars, in which case it' is overruled.” No exception to that ruling was taken. On March 29, 1930, the plaintiff filed with the clerk what purported to be a proffered amendment, setting up matters in the nature of a bill of particulars; but the record discloses no order allowing the amendment, or other matter tending to show that the amendment was in any way brought to the attention of the court during the term at which the conditional judgment on the demurrer was rendered. Because of these facts of record, it must be held that the plaintiff’s petition was properly dismissed on demurrer, and all proceedings in the ease at and after a subsequent term of the court were nugatory. Kumpe v. Hudgins, 39 Ga. App. 788 (149 S. E. 56) ; Pasco Flour Mills Co. v. City Supply Co., 23 Ga. App. 95 (97 S. E. 558) ; Pratt v. Gibson, 96 Ga. 807 (23 S. E. 839).

Judgment reversed'.

Broyles, O. J., concurs. Bloodioorih, J., alisent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E. 155, 44 Ga. App. 538, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/park-v-moore-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack