Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Hutcheson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Hutcheson

149 S.E.2d 157, 113 Ga. App. 554, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1131

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1966

Docket41956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 S.E.2d 157 (Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Hutcheson) 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

Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Hutcheson, 149 S.E.2d 157, 113 Ga. App. 554, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1131 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. Where a petition is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff and before refiling the plaintiff obtains a statement from the clerk of the court as to the costs due' and pays the amount of costs as shown on such statement, a plea in abatement will not lie to such refiled action because the clerk made a mistake in figuring such costs. See McDonald v. Wimpy, 204 Ga. 617 (50 SE2d 347); Whitsett v. Hester-Bowman Enterprises, Inc., 94 Ga. App. 78 (93 SE2d 788).

2. In the present case the plaintiff paid the costs (which the clerk of the court said were due) accruing from the filing of the first petition which he voluntarily dismissed before the second petition was filed, and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s plea in abatement based upon the ground that all the costs arising from the filing of the first petition had not been paid.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.

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