Banks v. Harden

Supreme Court of Georgia

Banks v. Harden

138 S.E.2d 320, 220 Ga. 266, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 516

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 28, 1964

Docket22625

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 S.E.2d 320 (Banks v. Harden) 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

Banks v. Harden, 138 S.E.2d 320, 220 Ga. 266, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 516 (Ga. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Head, Presiding Justice.

The petition for specific performance in the present case is entirely devoid of any allegations showing the value of the property so as to enable the court to determine that the contract sought to be enforced was fair, just, and equitable, and one that in good conscience should be performed, and the trial judge erred in overruling the general demurrers of the defendants. Coleman v. Woodland Hills Co., 196 Ga. 626 (27 SE2d 226); Ogletree v. Ingram & LeGrand Lumber Co., 207 Ga. 333 (3) (61 SE2d 480); Almand v. Williams, 208 Ga. 703 (69 SE2d 271); Ewing v. Paulk, 208 Ga. 722 (2) (69 SE2d 268); Morgan v. Mitchell, 209 Ga. 348 (2) (72 SE2d 310); Sikes v. Sims, 212 Ga. 391 (7) (93 SE2d 6); Seven Fifty, Inc. v. Hunter, 216 Ga. 407 (116 SE2d 552); Howington v. Juhan, 218 Ga. 748 (130 SE2d 822). Since the petition should have been dismissed on gen *267 eral demurrer, the other questions made by the record are moot.

Argued September 15, 1964 Decided September 28, 1964. Wheeler, Robinson & Thompson, B. Carl Buice, for plaintiffs in error. Davis ■& Davidson, Jack S. Davidson, Kimzey & Kimzey, Herbert B. Kimzey, contra.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Head, Presiding Justice.

The petition for specific performance in the present case is entirely devoid of any allegations showing the value of the property so as to enable the court to determine that the contract sought to be enforced was fair, just, and equitable, and one that in good conscience should be performed, and the trial judge erred in overruling the general demurrers of the defendants. Coleman v. Woodland Hills Co., 196 Ga. 626 (27 SE2d 226); Ogletree v. Ingram & LeGrand Lumber Co., 207 Ga. 333 (3) (61 SE2d 480); Almand v. Williams, 208 Ga. 703 (69 SE2d 271); Ewing v. Paulk, 208 Ga. 722 (2) (69 SE2d 268); Morgan v. Mitchell, 209 Ga. 348 (2) (72 SE2d 310); Sikes v. Sims, 212 Ga. 391 (7) (93 SE2d 6); Seven Fifty, Inc. v. Hunter, 216 Ga. 407 (116 SE2d 552); Howington v. Juhan, 218 Ga. 748 (130 SE2d 822). Since the petition should have been dismissed on gen *267 eral demurrer, the other questions made by the record are moot.

Argued September 15, 1964 Decided September 28, 1964. Wheeler, Robinson & Thompson, B. Carl Buice, for plaintiffs in error. Davis ■& Davidson, Jack S. Davidson, Kimzey & Kimzey, Herbert B. Kimzey, contra.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E.2d 320, 220 Ga. 266, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-harden-ga-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack