Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

133 Ga. 160

Clark v. Havard

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided August 12, 1909

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1909-08-12

<p>Equitable petition. Before Judge Ellis. Eulton superior court. July 8, 1908.</p>

Relies on Clark v. Havard · Satterfield v. Tate

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1909-08-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 1991 · most notably Jackson v. Reeves (1923), Ulman, Magill & Jordan Woolen Co. v. Magill (1923)

24 state decisions

801909191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Atkinson, J.

¶11. The ruling of the judge on the trial of the case, allowing an amendment to the plaintiff’s petition, in the absence of appropriate exceptions pendente lite duly certified and filed, can not be made a ground of a motion for a new trial. See, in 'this connection, Hawkins v. Studdard, 132 Ga. 262 (63 S. E. 852). See also, on the general subject, cases cited in 9 Michie’s Enc. Dig. Ga. Rep. 580.

¶22. A new trial will not be granted upon a ground complaining that the trial judge allowed the case to proceed without filing certain exemplifications of the appointments of representatives of.certain estates, non-resident parties defendant to the suit, where the ground does not disclose what objection, if any, was urged at the trial against so proceeding.

¶33. It was ruled in Clark v. Havard, 122 Ga. 273 (50 S. E. 108), that the petition set out a case warranting equitable relief. The evidence was sufficient to support a finding in favor of complainant, and none of the other grounds of the motion for a new trial present any sufficient reason for a reversal.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
/133/ga/160 · .json · Public domain