Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Sorrells v. Fitzpatrick Co.

Sorrells v. Fitzpatrick Co.

95 S.E. 998, 22 Ga. App. 297, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 314
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 14, 1918·No. 9559·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

95 S.E. 998 (Sorrells v. Fitzpatrick Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thornhill v. Cochran
116 S.E. 552 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)