Thurmond v. Thurmond

Supreme Court of Georgia

Thurmond v. Thurmond

185 S.E. 280, 182 Ga. 170, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 305

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 14, 1936

DocketNo. 10806

StatusPublished

This text of 185 S.E. 280 (Thurmond v. Thurmond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thurmond v. Thurmond, 185 S.E. 280, 182 Ga. 170, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 305 (Ga. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

The exception is to a judgment striking an amendment to the original petition and dismissing the case. The amendment was offered after a decision by this court holding that the deed in question conveyed separate tracts of land, and reversing a judgment of the trial court which construed the deed as conveying an entire tract to the grantees as tenants in common, and granted a decree for partition. Held, that the decision rendered at the first appearance in this court (Thurmond v. Thurmond, 179 Ga. 831, 177 S. E. 719) became the law as to the question which controlled the case. The amendment did not change the case. Consequently the court did not err in striking the amendment and dismissing the action.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. B. Howard Gordon and Rupert A. Brown, for plaintiffs. Clarence E. Adams, for defendant.

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

Atkinson, Justice.

The exception is to a judgment striking an amendment to the original petition and dismissing the case. The amendment was offered after a decision by this court holding that the deed in question conveyed separate tracts of land, and reversing a judgment of the trial court which construed the deed as conveying an entire tract to the grantees as tenants in common, and granted a decree for partition. Held, that the decision rendered at the first appearance in this court (Thurmond v. Thurmond, 179 Ga. 831, 177 S. E. 719) became the law as to the question which controlled the case. The amendment did not change the case. Consequently the court did not err in striking the amendment and dismissing the action.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. B. Howard Gordon and Rupert A. Brown, for plaintiffs. Clarence E. Adams, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E. 280, 182 Ga. 170, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thurmond-v-thurmond-ga-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack