Weinman v. Womack

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Weinman v. Womack

109 S.E. 177, 27 Ga. App. 502, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 233

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 24, 1921

Docket12177

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 S.E. 177 (Weinman v. Womack) 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

Weinman v. Womack, 109 S.E. 177, 27 Ga. App. 502, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 233 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. While there can be no valid judgment of foreclosure of a materialman’s lien for material furnished to a contractor upon the real estate improved with it, in the absence of a valid judgment ' in favor of the materialman against the contractor for the price of the material, and while in such a foreclosure suit, where the contractor is not a party, unless the petition alleges that the plaintiff has a judgment against the contractor, it should be dismissed on general demurrer (Baldwin v. Shields, 134 Ga. 221, 67 S. E. 798; Holmes v. Venable, ante, 431, 109 S. E. 175), yet where, as here, an amendment setting up such fact has been allowed without objection, the plaintiff is entitled to proceed with the foreclosure of the special lien.

2. An objection to the allowance of an amendment cannot for the first time be raised in the brief of counsel in this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Hill, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. While there can be no valid judgment of foreclosure of a materialman’s lien for material furnished to a contractor upon the real estate improved with it, in the absence of a valid judgment ' in favor of the materialman against the contractor for the price of the material, and while in such a foreclosure suit, where the contractor is not a party, unless the petition alleges that the plaintiff has a judgment against the contractor, it should be dismissed on general demurrer (Baldwin v. Shields, 134 Ga. 221, 67 S. E. 798; Holmes v. Venable, ante, 431, 109 S. E. 175), yet where, as here, an amendment setting up such fact has been allowed without objection, the plaintiff is entitled to proceed with the foreclosure of the special lien.

2. An objection to the allowance of an amendment cannot for the first time be raised in the brief of counsel in this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 S.E. 177, 27 Ga. App. 502, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinman-v-womack-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack