Court Opinion

ID: 9865643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:15:31.044886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:54.871795
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION TOR REHEARING.
1. In a motion for rehearing counsel for movant call our attention to three additional decisions of the Supreme Court as follows : Smith v. Bragg, 68 Ga. 650; Mitchell v. Western & Atlantic R. Co., 66 Ga. 243; and Williams v. Bradfield, 116 Ga. 705 (43 S. E. 57). In our view there is nothing in-these additional decisions to sustain the view of movant.
2. Our attention is called to the fact that the court misinterpreted the contentions of counsel for the plaintiff in error, in that the court in effect stated that it was such counsel’s position that the facts in the justice’s court were undisputed. By inadvertence in wording our opinion, counsel is correct. We herewith change *438that portion of the opinion so that it will read: “He contends that the judgment for $41 was a valid judgment and should not have been increased in amount by a final judgment of the superior court, on the theory that the facts in the justice’s court were disputed and as a matter 'of law did not demand the increase which the judgment of the superior court engrafted on the judgment of the inferior court. His own reasoning refutes his contention on this point. If the judgment was void, it was not the subject-matter of remand or any other judgment.” The changes made are substituting the word “disputed” for the word “undisputed;” striking the word “demanded” in the next following line, between the words “law” and “the,” and substituting the words “did not demand.” With these changes, the motion for rehearing is denied.