Bagwell v. Rice & Hutchins Atlanta Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bagwell v. Rice & Hutchins Atlanta Co.

143 S.E. 125, 38 Ga. App. 87, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 52

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 10, 1928·No. 18695·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The amended petition, properly construed (most strongly against the pleader), is an action for injuries to the reputation of the plaintiff; and, it appearing-upon the face of the petition that the causo of action originated more than one year before the filing of the petition, the action was barred by the statute of limitations and was properly dismissed on demurrer. Civil Code (1910), § 4497; Irvin v. Bentley, 18 Ga. App. 662 (90 S. E. 359).

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur. Charles W. Anderson, for plaintiff. Alston, Alston, Foster & Moise, for defendant.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The amended petition, properly construed (most strongly against the pleader), is an action for injuries to the reputation of the plaintiff; and, it appearing-upon the face of the petition that the causo of action originated more than one year before the filing of the petition, the action was barred by the statute of limitations and was properly dismissed on demurrer. Civil Code (1910), § 4497; Irvin v. Bentley, 18 Ga. App. 662 (90 S. E. 359).

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur. Charles W. Anderson, for plaintiff. Alston, Alston, Foster & Moise, for defendant.

Bagwell v. Rice & Hutchins Atlanta Co., 143 S.E. 125, 38 Ga. App. 87, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 52 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

143 S.E. 125 (Bagwell v. Rice & Hutchins Atlanta Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related