recovery claim in Georgia

2019As a result, we have held that "if the debtor initially fails to list the claim as a potential asset but later amends the bankruptcy filing or moves to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding to include the claim, judicial estoppel will not bar a later recovery on the claim." 8 (Citations omitted.) Smalls v. Walker , 243 Ga. App. 453 , 456 (2), 532 S.E.2d 420 (2000) ; accord Nat.

2019As a result, we have held that "if the debtor initially fails to list the claim as a potential asset but later amends the bankruptcy filing or moves to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding to include the claim, judicial estoppel will not bar a later recovery on the claim." 8 (Citations omitted.) Smalls v. Walker , 243 Ga. App. 453 , 456 (2), 532 S.E.2d 420 (2000) ; accord Nat.

2019Bldg. , supra, 288 Ga. App. at 27 , 653 S.E.2d 772 .

2019Bldg. , supra, 288 Ga. App. at 27 , 653 S.E.2d 772 .

1975Lumber Co., 80 Ga. App. 38, 43 ( 55 SE 244 ) where it was stated: "In order to be entitled to recover against the defendant, it was necessary for him to show that the specific material of the value alleged was delivered on the property of Stadelman; that it was used by the other defendants in the construction of a house on the said premises; that within three months from the date the materials were so furnished he recorded his claim of lien, and that he commenced an action for the recovery of his claim within twelve months from the time the same became due.” The contrary was ruled by one divis

1959Co. v. Herrington, 14 Ga. App. 539 (2), 81 S. E. 814 ), whereas, hearsay evidence is without probative value,, except under circumstances not here involved, and ordinarily can not supply any element of proof necessary to make out a case or establish a defense.

1959Co. v. Herrington, 14 Ga. App. 539 (2), 81 S. E. 814 ), whereas, hearsay evidence is without probative value,, except under circumstances not here involved, and ordinarily can not supply any element of proof necessary to make out a case or establish a defense.

1942The provision of the contract is denominated an “ express warranty.” In Commercial Credit Co. v. Lewis, 59 Ga. App. 144 (2) ( 200 S. E. 566 ), this court approved the following: “The warranty whether express or implied, necessarily enters into the' consideration of the article sold.

1942The provision of the contract is denominated an “ express warranty.” In Commercial Credit Co. v. Lewis, 59 Ga. App. 144 (2) ( 200 S. E. 566 ), this court approved the following: “The warranty whether express or implied, necessarily enters into the' consideration of the article sold.

1938“Counsel for defendant contend that the ruling in Barfield v. City of Atlanta, 53 Ga. App. 861 [ 187 S. E. 407 ], prevents plaintiff’s recovery, on the doctrine of estoppel.

1938“Counsel for defendant contend that the ruling in Barfield v. City of Atlanta, 53 Ga. App. 861 [ 187 S. E. 407 ], prevents plaintiff’s recovery, on the doctrine of estoppel.

1935Co. v. Gray, 113 Ga. 424 (2), 430 ( 38 S. E. 996 ) ; Hill v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 21 Ga. App. 45 (5) ( 93 S. E. 511 ) ; Pitts v. Rape, 25 Ga. App. 722 ( 104 S. E. 643 ). (5) No question has been raised as to whether a recovery on this claim should be had only by a legal representative of the deceased ward. 3.

1935Co. v. Gray, 113 Ga. 424 (2), 430 ( 38 S. E. 996 ) ; Hill v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 21 Ga. App. 45 (5) ( 93 S. E. 511 ) ; Pitts v. Rape, 25 Ga. App. 722 ( 104 S. E. 643 ). (5) No question has been raised as to whether a recovery on this claim should be had only by a legal representative of the deceased ward. 3.

1935Co. v. Gray, 113 Ga. 424 (2), 430 ( 38 S. E. 996 ) ; Hill v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 21 Ga. App. 45 (5) ( 93 S. E. 511 ) ; Pitts v. Rape, 25 Ga. App. 722 ( 104 S. E. 643 ). (5) No question has been raised as to whether a recovery on this claim should be had only by a legal representative of the deceased ward. 3.

1935Co. v. Gray, 113 Ga. 424 (2), 430 ( 38 S. E. 996 ) ; Hill v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 21 Ga. App. 45 (5) ( 93 S. E. 511 ) ; Pitts v. Rape, 25 Ga. App. 722 ( 104 S. E. 643 ). (5) No question has been raised as to whether a recovery on this claim should be had only by a legal representative of the deceased ward. 3.

1935Co. v. Gray, 113 Ga. 424 (2), 430 ( 38 S. E. 996 ) ; Hill v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 21 Ga. App. 45 (5) ( 93 S. E. 511 ) ; Pitts v. Rape, 25 Ga. App. 722 ( 104 S. E. 643 ). (5) No question has been raised as to whether a recovery on this claim should be had only by a legal representative of the deceased ward. 3.

1935Co. v. Gray, 113 Ga. 424 (2), 430 ( 38 S. E. 996 ) ; Hill v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 21 Ga. App. 45 (5) ( 93 S. E. 511 ) ; Pitts v. Rape, 25 Ga. App. 722 ( 104 S. E. 643 ). (5) No question has been raised as to whether a recovery on this claim should be had only by a legal representative of the deceased ward. 3.

1934Lombard v. Trustees, 73 Ga. 322, 324 ; Pike Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 132 Ga. 675 ( 64 S. E. 998 ) ; Griffin v. Gainesville Iron Works, 144 Ga. 840 ( 88 S. E. 201 ) ; Buck v. Tifton Mfg.

1934Lombard v. Trustees, 73 Ga. 322, 324 ; Pike Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 132 Ga. 675 ( 64 S. E. 998 ) ; Griffin v. Gainesville Iron Works, 144 Ga. 840 ( 88 S. E. 201 ) ; Buck v. Tifton Mfg.

1934Lombard v. Trustees, 73 Ga. 322, 324 ; Pike Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 132 Ga. 675 ( 64 S. E. 998 ) ; Griffin v. Gainesville Iron Works, 144 Ga. 840 ( 88 S. E. 201 ) ; Buck v. Tifton Mfg.

1934Lombard v. Trustees, 73 Ga. 322, 324 ; Pike Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 132 Ga. 675 ( 64 S. E. 998 ) ; Griffin v. Gainesville Iron Works, 144 Ga. 840 ( 88 S. E. 201 ) ; Buck v. Tifton Mfg.

1934Lombard v. Trustees, 73 Ga. 322, 324 ; Pike Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 132 Ga. 675 ( 64 S. E. 998 ) ; Griffin v. Gainesville Iron Works, 144 Ga. 840 ( 88 S. E. 201 ) ; Buck v. Tifton Mfg.

1912The matter was considered by this court in Zuber v. Southern Railway Co., 9 Ga. App. 539 ( 71 S. E. 937 ), where Judge Powell thus states the conclusion of the-court (p. 544) : “The exact nature of this liability which attaches against the carrier and in favor of the shipper on account of a violation of these rules of the railroad commission, and which in the second section of the act of 1905 is called a penalty, has never been judicially declared.

1912The matter was considered by this court in Zuber v. Southern Railway Co., 9 Ga. App. 539 ( 71 S. E. 937 ), where Judge Powell thus states the conclusion of the-court (p. 544) : “The exact nature of this liability which attaches against the carrier and in favor of the shipper on account of a violation of these rules of the railroad commission, and which in the second section of the act of 1905 is called a penalty, has never been judicially declared.

1906This being true, title to this land vested in the widow (Civil Code, § 3468), the homestead being merged into the year’s support (Bardwell v. Edwards, 117 Ga. 824 , and cit.); and upon her death it descended to her heirs at law, and not to the plaintiffs, who are heirs of Eli Moore, but not of his widow, Nancy Moore, their stepmother.