Thompson v. Georgia Railway & Power Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thompson v. Georgia Railway & Power Co.

137 S.E. 304, 36 Ga. App. 505, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 117

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 28, 1927

Docket16880

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 S.E. 304 (Thompson v. Georgia Railway & Power 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

Thompson v. Georgia Railway & Power Co., 137 S.E. 304, 36 Ga. App. 505, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. In view of the answer to certified questions propounded to the Supreme Court in this ease, the trial court did not err in striking from the petition certain parties plaintiff and in thereafter dismissing the petition as to the remaining plaintiff. See Thompson v. Georgia Railway & Power Co., 163 Ga. 598 (136 S. E. 895).

2. It is hereby directed that, at the time the judgment of this court is made the judgment of the court below, the minor plaintiff, Clarence Thompson, be permitted to amend the petition, subject to demurrer as amended, by alleging that, at the time of his mother’s death, he was in fact dependent upon her for support. Dellinger v. Elm City Cotton Mills, 26 Ga. App. 780 (107 S. E. 264). The grant of this permission is not to be construed as a ruling that the petition as thus amended would give a right of action to such minor child.

Judgment affirmed, wilh direction.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. Reuben R. & Lowry Arnold, R. B. Blackburn, for plaintiffs. Colquitt & Conyers, for defendant.

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

Stephens, J.

1. In view of the answer to certified questions propounded to the Supreme Court in this ease, the trial court did not err in striking from the petition certain parties plaintiff and in thereafter dismissing the petition as to the remaining plaintiff. See Thompson v. Georgia Railway & Power Co., 163 Ga. 598 (136 S. E. 895).

2. It is hereby directed that, at the time the judgment of this court is made the judgment of the court below, the minor plaintiff, Clarence Thompson, be permitted to amend the petition, subject to demurrer as amended, by alleging that, at the time of his mother’s death, he was in fact dependent upon her for support. Dellinger v. Elm City Cotton Mills, 26 Ga. App. 780 (107 S. E. 264). The grant of this permission is not to be construed as a ruling that the petition as thus amended would give a right of action to such minor child.

Judgment affirmed, wilh direction.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. Reuben R. & Lowry Arnold, R. B. Blackburn, for plaintiffs. Colquitt & Conyers, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.E. 304, 36 Ga. App. 505, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-georgia-railway-power-co-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack