Sorrells v. Fitzpatrick Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sorrells v. Fitzpatrick Co.

95 S.E. 998, 22 Ga. App. 297, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 314

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1918

Docket9559

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 998 (Sorrells v. Fitzpatrick 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

Sorrells v. Fitzpatrick Co., 95 S.E. 998, 22 Ga. App. 297, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 314 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. There was no error in overruling the demurrer to the ’ amendment to the original petition.

2. Under the evidence and the pleadings the court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant, or in refusing to dismiss the'suit, or in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur. E. H. George, for plaintiff in err,or. M. 0. Few, contra.

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