Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Bagwell v. Rice & Hutchins Atlanta Co.

Bagwell v. Rice & Hutchins Atlanta Co.

143 S.E. 125, 38 Ga. App. 87, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 52
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 10, 1928
Docket18695
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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

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

Related

Wright v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
281 Ill. App. 495 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 S.E. 125, 38 Ga. App. 87, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagwell-v-rice-hutchins-atlanta-co-gactapp-1928.