History
  • No items yet
midpage
Tucker v. Lea
206 Ga. 538
Ga.
1950
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

Under Code § 3-601, no suitor may prosecute two actions in the courts at the same time, for the same cause, and against the same party; and if such suits are commenced at different times, the pendency of the former shall be a good defense to the latter. The petition showing that another suit which involved the same subject-matter (Mrs. Tucker’s answer in the nature of a cross-petition in Tucker v. American Surety Co. of N. Y., ante, 533), was pending at the time the present suit was filed, the court did not err in sustaining a general demurrer and in dismissing the action. See, in this connection, Bird v. Trapnell, 148 Ga. 301 (1) (96 S. E. 417); Cook v. State Highway Board, 162 Ga. 84 (3) (132 S. E. 902); Hines v. Moore, 168 Ga. 451 (8) (148 S. E. 162).

*539No. 16939. February 16, 1950. Randall Evans Jr., for plaintiff. B. Lamar. Tillman, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Duckworth, C. J., who dissents. Head, J., concurs specially.





Concurrence Opinion

Head, Justice

concurring specially. I concur in the judgment for the reason that in my opinion the jurisdiction of the action in so far as it relates to any acts or purported acts of the guardian is confined to thé courts of the guardian’s residence, in this case Ware County.

Case Details

Case Name: Tucker v. Lea
Court Name: Supreme Court of Georgia
Date Published: Feb 16, 1950
Citation: 206 Ga. 538
Docket Number: No. 16939
Court Abbreviation: Ga.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.