HATTIE HAWKINS
v.
IDEAL HOLDING COMPANY AND ROAN KELLY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case, a companion to a prior ruling, involves a mother suing a holding company and an individual. The court affirmed the sustaining of a demurrer but reversed the final judgment for the defendants, conditioned on the plaintiff amending her declaration.
The court held that while the sustaining of the demurrer was correct, the entry of a final judgment for the defendants was erroneous. The plaintiff is granted an opportunity to amend her declaration.
“On authority of the opinion arid judgment in the Kendrick case, supra, the judgment herein sustaining the demurrer should be affirmed but the judgment thereupon being entered in favor of the defendants is reversed, on condition that plaintiff amend her declaration within ten days after the filing of the mandate in the lower court, and, failing to do.so, the entire, judgment be affirmed.”
This quote explains the court's decision to affirm the demurrer but reverse the final judgment, contingent on the plaintiff amending her declaration.
The plaintiff, mother of Lula May Kendrick, sued Ideal Holding Company and Roan Kelly. This case is a companion to a previous suit brought by Lula May…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
This is a companion suh to that of Lula May Kendrick by her' next friend v. Ideal Holding Co.. et'al. the opinion and judgment in which is this day filed. In this suit the mother of Lula May Kendrick sues.
On authority of the opinion arid judgment in the Kendrick case, supra, the judgment herein sustaining the demurrer should be affirmed but the judgment thereupon being entered in favor of the defendants is reversed, on condition that plaintiff amend her declaration within ten days after the filing of the mandate in the lower court, and, failing to do.so, the entire, judgment be affirmed.
The costs incident to this review, on writ of error should be taxed equally against the parties.
It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J., concur:
Thomas, J.. disqualified