Toomer v. Warren

51 S.E. 393, 123 Ga. 477, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 499
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 17, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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.

Bluebook
Toomer v. Warren, 51 S.E. 393, 123 Ga. 477, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 499 (Ga. 1905).

Opinion

Pish, P. J.

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.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, C. J., absent.-

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

Related

Carlton v. Moultrie Banking Co.
152 S.E. 215 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)
Arnold v. Johnson
104 S.E. 499 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.