Bailey v. Freeman

78 S.E. 423, 140 Ga. 71, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 32
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided May 16, 1913·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

This ease is substantially controlled by the decisions in Bennett v. Bird, 139 Ga. 25 (76 S. E. 568), and Spence v. Queen, 139 Ga. 587 (77 S. B. 820). The demands sought to be asserted were barred by the statute of limitations; and where not expressly so: appearing, the pleadings must be construed most strongly against the pleader. While the word “fraud” was freely used, no such facts were alleged as showed fraud preventing the discovery of the plaintiff’s rights by the use of the slightest diligence on her part, or the bringing of suit by her within the statutory period. There was accordingly no error in dismissing the petition on demurrer setting up the bar of the statute.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Bailey v. Freeman, 78 S.E. 423, 140 Ga. 71, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 32 (Ga. 1913).

78 S.E. 423 (Bailey v. Freeman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miles v. Harrison
155 S.E.2d 6 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1967)
Hillis v. Clark
150 S.E.2d 922 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
Warnock v. Warnock
57 S.E.2d 571 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Jones v. Johnson
46 S.E.2d 484 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Hollingsworth v. Redwine
36 S.E.2d 869 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1946)
Rawleigh Co. v. Etheridge
140 S.E. 913 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Phipps v. Wright
110 S.E. 511 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
James v. Hill
79 S.E. 782 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)