TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kelly v. Malone

Kelly v. Malone, 63 S.E. 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 9, 1909
Docket
No. 1105
Judges
Russell
Citations
63 S.E. 6395 Ga. App. 6181909 Ga. App. LEXIS 89
Summary
Complaint, from city court of Montieello — Judge Thurman. March 11, 1908.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Russell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Russell, J.

1. A motion to strike a paragraph, of the defendant’s answer is an oral demurrer thereto. Exception to the judgment rendered! upon such a motion must be preserved by exceptions pendente lite, unless the bill of exceptions is certified within thirty days from the day *619 of the judgment of which complaint is made. A ruling upon a motion ta strike either a part or the whole of a defendant’s answer can not be reviewed by a motion for new trial.

Complaint, from city court of Montieello — Judge Thurman. March 11, 1908. Submitted May 8, 1908. Decided February 9, 1909. A. T. Clement, for plaintiff in error. Greene F. Johnson, contra.

2. It is not error to exclude evidence which is not pertinent to the pleadings,

(a) Where both parties to a cause rely upon an express contract, and are in conflict only as its terms, and this is the only issue raised by the pleadings, it is pot error to exclude 'testimony as to the value of services which were the subject-matter of the contract; nor is it error to refuse to allow proof that others had offered to perform such services for a different amount. Jacobus v. Wood, 84 Ga. 639 (2, 4), ( 10 S. E. 1099 ).

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1913: 11916: 11917: 21934: 11935: 11960: 119132026peak 1917 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brooke & Co. v. Cunningham Bros.90 S.E. 1037 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916)
  2. Crawford v. State176 S.E. 92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
  3. Coulson v. State78 S.E. 1108 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913)
  4. Carroll v. Yearty117 S.E.2d 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960)
  5. Brown v. Wilkes92 S.E. 553 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
  6. Haley v. Block93 S.E. 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)

Most recent

  1. Carroll v. Yearty117 S.E.2d 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960)
  2. Hilderbrand v. Nashville, Chattanooga & Saint Louis Railway179 S.E. 591 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
  3. Crawford v. State176 S.E. 92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
  4. Haley v. Block93 S.E. 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
  5. Brown v. Wilkes92 S.E. 553 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
  6. Brooke & Co. v. Cunningham Bros.90 S.E. 1037 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Burwell v. Burgwyn, 10 S.E. 1099 (N.C. 1890) 5

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