Bailey v. Turner

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bailey v. Turner

127 S.E. 616, 160 Ga. 214, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 120

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1925

DocketNo. 4294

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 S.E. 616 (Bailey v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. Turner, 127 S.E. 616, 160 Ga. 214, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 120 (Ga. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. When this case was before this court on a -former occasion (Bailey v. Turner, 150 Ga. 823, 105 S. E. 471), it was held that .the petition as amended alleged a cause of action, and that it was not subject to the general and special demurrers that were at that time interposed to the petition. Subsequently the petition was further amended, but there were no demurrers to the amendments or to the petition as thus amended. On the trial there was evidence tending to support all of the allegations of the petition as amended, and sufficient to make out a prima facie case under the former decision of this court. It was therefore erroneous, on the trial now under review, to grant a nonsuit.

2. The request to review and overrule the former decision of this case is declined. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. J. 8. Ayers, Seth Pelele, W. W. Stark, and Shackelford & Shackelford, for plaintiff. Pemberton Cooley, for defendants.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. When this case was before this court on a -former occasion (Bailey v. Turner, 150 Ga. 823, 105 S. E. 471), it was held that .the petition as amended alleged a cause of action, and that it was not subject to the general and special demurrers that were at that time interposed to the petition. Subsequently the petition was further amended, but there were no demurrers to the amendments or to the petition as thus amended. On the trial there was evidence tending to support all of the allegations of the petition as amended, and sufficient to make out a prima facie case under the former decision of this court. It was therefore erroneous, on the trial now under review, to grant a nonsuit.

2. The request to review and overrule the former decision of this case is declined. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. J. 8. Ayers, Seth Pelele, W. W. Stark, and Shackelford & Shackelford, for plaintiff. Pemberton Cooley, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.E. 616, 160 Ga. 214, 1925 Ga. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-turner-ga-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack