Pruitt v. Pace

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pruitt v. Pace

72 S.E. 1098, 10 Ga. App. 201, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 713

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 19, 1911·No. 3415·Published

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

This was a foreclosure of a laborer’s lien claimed under section 2792 of the Civil Code of 1895, now section 3334 of the Civil Code of 1910; and, the evidence of the alleged “laborer” clearly showing that he was not a “laborer,” in the sense in which that word is used in the statute, there was no error in sustaining the certiorari and in entering final judgment against him. The case is fully controlled by the decision in Howell v. Atkinson, 3 Ga. App. 58 (59 S. E. 316). Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

This was a foreclosure of a laborer’s lien claimed under section 2792 of the Civil Code of 1895, now section 3334 of the Civil Code of 1910; and, the evidence of the alleged “laborer” clearly showing that he was not a “laborer,” in the sense in which that word is used in the statute, there was no error in sustaining the certiorari and in entering final judgment against him. The case is fully controlled by the decision in Howell v. Atkinson, 3 Ga. App. 58 (59 S. E. 316). Judgment affirmed.

Pruitt v. Pace, 72 S.E. 1098, 10 Ga. App. 201, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 713 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

72 S.E. 1098 (Pruitt v. Pace) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related