Wilson v. Rourke

Supreme Court of Georgia

Wilson v. Rourke

143 S.E. 374, 166 Ga. 458, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 325

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided May 18, 1928·No. No. 6472·Published

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

I. The trial court, in such cases as this, has a large discretion which will not be controlled unless abused. We can not say that there was any abuse of discretion in this case.

2. The petition was not subject to general demurrer, nor was it error to allow the amendments thereto.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. George II. Richter, for plaintiff in error. Shelby Myriclc, contra.

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

Gilbert, J.

I. The trial court, in such cases as this, has a large discretion which will not be controlled unless abused. We can not say that there was any abuse of discretion in this case.

2. The petition was not subject to general demurrer, nor was it error to allow the amendments thereto.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. George II. Richter, for plaintiff in error. Shelby Myriclc, contra.

Wilson v. Rourke, 143 S.E. 374, 166 Ga. 458, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 325 (Ga. 1928).

Pincite

143 S.E. 374 (Wilson v. Rourke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.