Thebit v. Hinton-Bellah Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thebit v. Hinton-Bellah Inc.

194 S.E. 894, 57 Ga. App. 205, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 531

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 13, 1938

Docket26580

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 194 S.E. 894 (Thebit v. Hinton-Bellah Inc.) 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

Thebit v. Hinton-Bellah Inc., 194 S.E. 894, 57 Ga. App. 205, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 531 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Guebry, J.

The motion to dismiss the writ of error on the ground of lack of designation of parties defendant in error in the bill of exceptions is without merit. The bill of exceptions names Hinton-Bellah Inc. and W. P. Roper, defendants in error in the caption, and the bill of exceptions contains an acknowledgement of service by “G. W. Langford, attorney for Hinton-Bellah Inc., and W. P. RoperP

The petition alleged substantially that Hinton-Bellah Inc. and W. P. Roper,-defendants, injured and damaged the petitioner in the sum of $110, in that on November 21, 1936, said HintonBellah Inc., by and through its duly authorized agent, sued out an attachment against petitioner; that said Hinton-Bellah Inc. as principal, and W. P. Roper, as surety, executed an attachment bond as provided for in the Code, § 8-119; that the petitioner sustained the damages and cost herein set forth in consequence of the suing out of said attachment; that upon said affidavit and bond an attachment was issued against petitioner, directed to all and singular the sheriffs and constables of said county, commanding said officers to seize so much of the property of petitioner as would make the sum of $98.20, together with all costs, and requiring [206]*206said officers to make return of the attachment with their actings and doings entered thereon to the December term of the justice’s court of said district; that petitioner filed a traverse of said attachment, and the plaintiff in attachment, Hinton-Bellah Inc., dismissed the attachment and thereby did fail to recover in said case; that as a consequence of suing out of said attachment petitioner incurred the following costs and expenses: attorney’s fees for defending the attachment case, $50; expenses incident to attending the justice’s court in the attachment case, and cost of bringing witnesses to testify in said case, $25; loss of lime on account of the levy of the attachment and by attending court, $85. Held that this petition was amendable by adding a specific allegation that the attachment referred to the original petition was levied on property belonging to the plaintiff, and by adding thereto an entry of levy on the attachment which entry “was inadvertently excluded from the copy thereof appearing in the original petition.” See Code, § 81-1302; Ellison v. Ga. R. Co., 87 Ga. 691 (13 S. E. 809).

So amended, the petition set out a cause of action and the judge erred in sustaining a general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Guebry, J.

The motion to dismiss the writ of error on the ground of lack of designation of parties defendant in error in the bill of exceptions is without merit. The bill of exceptions names Hinton-Bellah Inc. and W. P. Roper, defendants in error in the caption, and the bill of exceptions contains an acknowledgement of service by “G. W. Langford, attorney for Hinton-Bellah Inc., and W. P. RoperP

The petition alleged substantially that Hinton-Bellah Inc. and W. P. Roper,-defendants, injured and damaged the petitioner in the sum of $110, in that on November 21, 1936, said HintonBellah Inc., by and through its duly authorized agent, sued out an attachment against petitioner; that said Hinton-Bellah Inc. as principal, and W. P. Roper, as surety, executed an attachment bond as provided for in the Code, § 8-119; that the petitioner sustained the damages and cost herein set forth in consequence of the suing out of said attachment; that upon said affidavit and bond an attachment was issued against petitioner, directed to all and singular the sheriffs and constables of said county, commanding said officers to seize so much of the property of petitioner as would make the sum of $98.20, together with all costs, and requiring [206]*206said officers to make return of the attachment with their actings and doings entered thereon to the December term of the justice’s court of said district; that petitioner filed a traverse of said attachment, and the plaintiff in attachment, Hinton-Bellah Inc., dismissed the attachment and thereby did fail to recover in said case; that as a consequence of suing out of said attachment petitioner incurred the following costs and expenses: attorney’s fees for defending the attachment case, $50; expenses incident to attending the justice’s court in the attachment case, and cost of bringing witnesses to testify in said case, $25; loss of lime on account of the levy of the attachment and by attending court, $85. Held that this petition was amendable by adding a specific allegation that the attachment referred to the original petition was levied on property belonging to the plaintiff, and by adding thereto an entry of levy on the attachment which entry “was inadvertently excluded from the copy thereof appearing in the original petition.” See Code, § 81-1302; Ellison v. Ga. R. Co., 87 Ga. 691 (13 S. E. 809).

So amended, the petition set out a cause of action and the judge erred in sustaining a general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 S.E. 894, 57 Ga. App. 205, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thebit-v-hinton-bellah-inc-gactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack