Card v. CHICHESTER'S BACONSFIELD PHARMACY, INC.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Card v. CHICHESTER'S BACONSFIELD PHARMACY, INC.

141 S.E.2d 790, 111 Ga. App. 358, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 969

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 16, 1965

Docket41057

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 141 S.E.2d 790 (Card v. CHICHESTER'S BACONSFIELD PHARMACY, INC.) 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

Card v. CHICHESTER'S BACONSFIELD PHARMACY, INC., 141 S.E.2d 790, 111 Ga. App. 358, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 969 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case is controlled adversely to the plaintiff in error by the case of Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp., 110 Ga. App. 170 (138 SE2d 77). In Division 2 of the opinion in Gibson, the principal holding is that the petition did not state a cause of action against the defendant for negligence since nothing was alleged which, if proved, would be sufficient to show negligence. That holding at least in the badly split decision received the unquestioned concurrence of five judges, a majority of the court. See Judge Hall’s special concurrence in which he agreed fully with Judge Eberhardt’s view on this point.

The petition here in all material aspects has such a resemblance to the petition in Gibson as to be essentially the same. It follows that the holding in Gibson is applicable here and requires affirmance of the trial court’s judgment in sustaining the defendant’s general demurrer and dismissing the plaintiff’s petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This case is controlled adversely to the plaintiff in error by the case of Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp., 110 Ga. App. 170 (138 SE2d 77). In Division 2 of the opinion in Gibson, the principal holding is that the petition did not state a cause of action against the defendant for negligence since nothing was alleged which, if proved, would be sufficient to show negligence. That holding at least in the badly split decision received the unquestioned concurrence of five judges, a majority of the court. See Judge Hall’s special concurrence in which he agreed fully with Judge Eberhardt’s view on this point.

The petition here in all material aspects has such a resemblance to the petition in Gibson as to be essentially the same. It follows that the holding in Gibson is applicable here and requires affirmance of the trial court’s judgment in sustaining the defendant’s general demurrer and dismissing the plaintiff’s petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E.2d 790, 111 Ga. App. 358, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/card-v-chichesters-baconsfield-pharmacy-inc-gactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack