TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Hapeville v. Jones

City of Hapeville v. Jones Et Al.

City of Hapeville v. Jones, 20 S.E.2d 599 (Ga. 1942)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 27, 1942
Docket
No. 14020.
Judges
Atkinson
Citations
20 S.E.2d 599194 Ga. 571942 Ga. LEXIS 519

Opinion of the Court — Atkinson

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

In a suit by private property owners against the City of Hapeville, to enjoin an alleged nuisance and for other relief, the defendant demurred on the grounds: (1) The petition sets forth no cause of action. (2) The petition contains a misjoinder of parties plaintiff. (3) The petition contains a misjoinder of causes of action. (4) The defendant moves to strike paragraph 15, for the reason that it does not show what notice was given to the defendant of the intention to file suit. On May 9, 1941, the judge passed an order: “Ground 4 is sustained, and said petition will stand dismissed unless amended in twenty days. All other grounds are hereby overruled.” After expiration of the twenty days (as stated in the bill of exceptions), but during the same term of court, the plaintiffs presented an amendment setting forth copies of the notices as required by the order. The amendment was allowed by the judge on June 7, 1941. Afterward, on the assignment of cases for trial on October 20, 1941, the defendant made a motion to dismiss the action, on the ground that the amendment had not been presented within the time prescribed by the order of the court. This motion was overruled, and the case was assigned for hearing. The sole assignment of error is on this judgment.

Held:

(a)

The twenty days allowed by the order in which to amend are calendar days.

(S) The time allowed in which to amend having expired before the tender and allowance of the amendment, the case stood dismissed by the terms of the order. It was erroneous, after such tender of the amendment, to overrule the motion seeking formal dismissal of the action.

Smith v. Atlanta Gas-Light Co., 181 Ga.

479 ( 182 S. E. 603 );

Peyton v. Rylee, 191 Ga.

40, 42 ( 11 S. E. 2d, 195 ).

(o) The case differs on its facts from Blyth v. White, 178 Ga.

488, 493 ( 173 S. E. 421 ), and Greer v. Protective Mortgage Co., 189 Ga.

217 ( 5 S. E. 2d, 751 ).

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1943: 11944: 11946: 11948: 21967: 21968: 119432026peak 1948 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bradshaw v. Crawford49 S.E.2d 169 (Ga. Ct. App. 1948)
  2. Parker v. Giles32 S.E.2d 408 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944)
  3. Luke v. Ellis40 S.E.2d 85 (Ga. 1946)
  4. Dinkler v. Jenkins163 S.E.2d 443 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
  5. Burruss v. Burruss27 S.E.2d 748 (Ga. 1943)
  6. Leakey v. Duke48 S.E.2d 709 (Ga. Ct. App. 1948)

Most recent

  1. Dinkler v. Jenkins163 S.E.2d 443 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
  2. Pittman v. Presley Electric Co.156 S.E.2d 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
  3. Atlanta Transit System, Inc. v. Parks154 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
  4. Bradshaw v. Crawford49 S.E.2d 169 (Ga. Ct. App. 1948)
  5. Leakey v. Duke48 S.E.2d 709 (Ga. Ct. App. 1948)
  6. Luke v. Ellis40 S.E.2d 85 (Ga. 1946)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Smith v. Atlanta Gas-Light Co., 182 S.E. 603 (Ga. 1935) 22
Blyth v. White, 173 S.E. 421 (Ga. 1934) 15
Peyton v. Rylee, 11 S.E.2d 195 (Ga. 1940) 14
Greer v. Protective Mortg. Co., 5 S.E.2d 751 (Ga. 1939) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list