Toomer v. Warren
This text of 51 S.E. 393 (Toomer v. Warren) 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.
Opinion
1. The material facts of this case being substantially the same as those involved in Bell v. Dawson Grocery Company, 120 Ga. 628, the , rulings there made are controlling in the present case.
2. It is only where discovery is expressly prayed for in plaintiff’s petition that two witnesses, or one witness and corroborating circumstances, are required to rebut the answer of defendant, as to facts within his own knowledge, responsive to the discovery sought. Civil Code, § 3950; Acts 1898, p. 53.
3. A judgment overruling a demurrer to a petition for injunction and receiver, rendered upon an interlocutory hearing in vacation before the appearance term, is a mere nullity. Reynolds & Hamby Co. v. Kingsbery, 118 Ga. 254.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
51 S.E. 393, 123 Ga. 477, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toomer-v-warren-ga-1905.