Albright v. University School of Medicine

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Albright v. University School of Medicine

91 S.E. 921, 19 Ga. App. 525, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 218

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 20, 1917

Docket7840

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.E. 921 (Albright v. University School of Medicine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albright v. University School of Medicine, 91 S.E. 921, 19 Ga. App. 525, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 218 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

George, J.

A medical college brought suit in a justice’s court, upon a promissory note. The defendant filed an answer, admitting the execution of the note, but alleging a total failure of consideration, for the following reasons: That “defendant entered said school for the purpose of getting all the benefit of the profession; that he spent several years there, and paid plaintiffs large sums of money for tuition up to January, 1911; that up to said date he had the use and advantages' of large equipments of said college; that he was required to furnish dental supplies and equipments necessary to his profession, and that he bought said instruments, -and paid for them, and that said plaintiff required him to keep same in their college building; that on or about January 6, 1911, the building in which he was required to keep said instruments was totally destroyed by fire, same being caused, or said to have been caused, by the negligence of the officers of said college in allowing combustible material in said building, and that defendant suffered the total loss of all his instruments and books, which were worth $140.00. . . Defendant says that during the spring term, 1911, he was compelled to follow the faculty of said college around from building to building in the City of Richmond, Va., and from room to room, in order to finish the term, which defendant says was of very little, if any, benefit to him, and that he does not believe he was benefited at all thereby. Wherefore defendant prays that said note be can-celled and that he have judgment against plaintiff for the sum of $65.00 and cost of suit.” Held: The answer was properly stricken oh general demurrer, and the judge of the superior court did not err in dismissing [526]*526tlie certiorari sued out by the defendant, and in awarding judgment against him for principal, interest, and cost.

Decided March 20, 1917.

Certiorari; from Fayette superior court—Judge Searcy. August 12, 1916.

W. B. Hollingsworth, Lester C. Diclcson, for plaintiff in 'error. J. W. Culpepper, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

George, J.

A medical college brought suit in a justice’s court, upon a promissory note. The defendant filed an answer, admitting the execution of the note, but alleging a total failure of consideration, for the following reasons: That “defendant entered said school for the purpose of getting all the benefit of the profession; that he spent several years there, and paid plaintiffs large sums of money for tuition up to January, 1911; that up to said date he had the use and advantages' of large equipments of said college; that he was required to furnish dental supplies and equipments necessary to his profession, and that he bought said instruments, -and paid for them, and that said plaintiff required him to keep same in their college building; that on or about January 6, 1911, the building in which he was required to keep said instruments was totally destroyed by fire, same being caused, or said to have been caused, by the negligence of the officers of said college in allowing combustible material in said building, and that defendant suffered the total loss of all his instruments and books, which were worth $140.00. . . Defendant says that during the spring term, 1911, he was compelled to follow the faculty of said college around from building to building in the City of Richmond, Va., and from room to room, in order to finish the term, which defendant says was of very little, if any, benefit to him, and that he does not believe he was benefited at all thereby. Wherefore defendant prays that said note be can-celled and that he have judgment against plaintiff for the sum of $65.00 and cost of suit.” Held: The answer was properly stricken oh general demurrer, and the judge of the superior court did not err in dismissing [526]*526tlie certiorari sued out by the defendant, and in awarding judgment against him for principal, interest, and cost.

Decided March 20, 1917.

Certiorari; from Fayette superior court—Judge Searcy. August 12, 1916.

W. B. Hollingsworth, Lester C. Diclcson, for plaintiff in 'error. J. W. Culpepper, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 921, 19 Ga. App. 525, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albright-v-university-school-of-medicine-gactapp-1917.