Ringwald v. Watkins Medical Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ringwald v. Watkins Medical Co.

111 S.E. 83, 28 Ga. App. 298, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 462

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 7, 1922

Docket12851

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 83 (Ringwald v. Watkins Medical Co.) 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

Ringwald v. Watkins Medical Co., 111 S.E. 83, 28 Ga. App. 298, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 462 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. This case was before this court upon a former writ of error (24 Ga. App. 308,-100 S. E. 781). Subsequently the defendant served upon the plaintiff the following notice to produce “All letters, documents, correspondence, and any other written communication written by the defendant, M. O. Ringwald to the plaintiff above set out, or to any one connected with said company, or to any individual of said company, between the dates of Dec. 1, 1914, and Dec. 25, 1917.” Dpon motion of the plaintiff, the court held that this notice was not sufficiently definite and was too vague and uncertain in description and too extensive in range to direct the plaintiff to produce the papers called for in the notice. This court is convinced that the notice is too indefinite and too extensive in range to require the production of the letters. By the notice the plaintiff is commanded to produce every kind of written communication to the plaintiff or to anyone connected with the company, or to any individual of said company. See Ga. Iron Coal Co. v. Etowah Iron Co., 104 Ga. 395 (30 S. E. 878), and cases cited; Hamby Mountain Gold Mine v. Findley, 85 Ga. 431 (2) (11 S.E. 775).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and for no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. This case was before this court upon a former writ of error (24 Ga. App. 308,-100 S. E. 781). Subsequently the defendant served upon the plaintiff the following notice to produce “All letters, documents, correspondence, and any other written communication written by the defendant, M. O. Ringwald to the plaintiff above set out, or to any one connected with said company, or to any individual of said company, between the dates of Dec. 1, 1914, and Dec. 25, 1917.” Dpon motion of the plaintiff, the court held that this notice was not sufficiently definite and was too vague and uncertain in description and too extensive in range to direct the plaintiff to produce the papers called for in the notice. This court is convinced that the notice is too indefinite and too extensive in range to require the production of the letters. By the notice the plaintiff is commanded to produce every kind of written communication to the plaintiff or to anyone connected with the company, or to any individual of said company. See Ga. Iron Coal Co. v. Etowah Iron Co., 104 Ga. 395 (30 S. E. 878), and cases cited; Hamby Mountain Gold Mine v. Findley, 85 Ga. 431 (2) (11 S.E. 775).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and for no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 83, 28 Ga. App. 298, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ringwald-v-watkins-medical-co-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack