Tift County v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tift County v. Smith

132 S.E.2d 268, 108 Ga. App. 94, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 554

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 25, 1963

Docket39569

StatusPublished

This text of 132 S.E.2d 268 (Tift County v. Smith) 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

Tift County v. Smith, 132 S.E.2d 268, 108 Ga. App. 94, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 554 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The judgment of this court, Tift County v. Smith, 107 Ga. App. 140 (129 SE2d 172), affirming the judgment of the superior court overruling the defendant’s general and special demurrers to the plaintiff’s petition having been reversed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Tift County v. Smith, 219 Ga. 69 (131 SE2d 527), in so far as the plaintiff’s petition sought to recover damages arising from the creation of the cul-de-sac, the judgment of this court affirming the judgment of the trial court is vacated and the judgment of the trial court is reversed to the extent that such judgment permitted a recovery for the creation of the cul-de-sac. Otherwise the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with the prior opinion of this court.

Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part. All the Judges concur.

Eugene Cook, Attorney General, Carter Goode, Paul Miller, Assistant Attorneys General, Maxwell Hines, for plaintiff in error. Robert R. Forrester, Seymour S. Owens, contra.

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

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The judgment of this court, Tift County v. Smith, 107 Ga. App. 140 (129 SE2d 172), affirming the judgment of the superior court overruling the defendant’s general and special demurrers to the plaintiff’s petition having been reversed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Tift County v. Smith, 219 Ga. 69 (131 SE2d 527), in so far as the plaintiff’s petition sought to recover damages arising from the creation of the cul-de-sac, the judgment of this court affirming the judgment of the trial court is vacated and the judgment of the trial court is reversed to the extent that such judgment permitted a recovery for the creation of the cul-de-sac. Otherwise the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with the prior opinion of this court.

Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part. All the Judges concur.

Eugene Cook, Attorney General, Carter Goode, Paul Miller, Assistant Attorneys General, Maxwell Hines, for plaintiff in error. Robert R. Forrester, Seymour S. Owens, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E.2d 268, 108 Ga. App. 94, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tift-county-v-smith-gactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack