Sorrells v. Southern States Portland Cement Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sorrells v. Southern States Portland Cement Co.

105 S.E. 709, 26 Ga. App. 273, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 97

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 28, 1921

Docket11923

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 S.E. 709 (Sorrells v. Southern States Portland Cement 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. Southern States Portland Cement Co., 105 S.E. 709, 26 Ga. App. 273, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 97 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The plaintiff, in recommencing his suit which had been previously nonsuited, failed to comply either with section 5625 of the Civil Code (1910) as to payment of costs, or with section 5026, his affidavit in forma pauperis failing to state that “he is advised that he has good cause for recommencing his suit.” It was not error for the court to dismiss the petition on demurrer.

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.

The plaintiff, in recommencing his suit which had been previously nonsuited, failed to comply either with section 5625 of the Civil Code (1910) as to payment of costs, or with section 5026, his affidavit in forma pauperis failing to state that “he is advised that he has good cause for recommencing his suit.” It was not error for the court to dismiss the petition on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.E. 709, 26 Ga. App. 273, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sorrells-v-southern-states-portland-cement-co-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack