Cassini v. Highlands Hotel Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cassini v. Highlands Hotel Co.

142 S.E. 565, 37 Ga. App. 778, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 612

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 3, 1928

Docket17944

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 S.E. 565 (Cassini v. Highlands Hotel 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

Cassini v. Highlands Hotel Co., 142 S.E. 565, 37 Ga. App. 778, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 612 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. In this suit to recover on a stock subscription the petition affirmatively disclosed such a state of facts as rendered the subscription voidable under the securities act (Ga. L. 1920, p. 250), and thus subject to general demurrer. On this question the case is controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Felton v. Highlands Hotel Co., [779]*779165 Ga. 598 (141 S. E.). Eor the reason stated the court erred in not sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing' the action. Whether the petition was bad in that it disclosed other defenses need not be decided and is not decided.

Decided March 3, 1928. John B. L. Smith, Joseph LeOonte Smith, M. G. Bennet, for plaintiff in error. Harry S. Strozier, Brock, Sparks & Bussell, contra.

2. “Where there has been no final judgment, a defendant can not, in a bill of exceptions to a judgment overruling his general demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition, properly except also to an order striking his answer.” Brown v. Marbut-Williams Lumber Co., 34 Ga. App. 348 (2) (129 S. E. 575); Chatham Motor Co. v. Lincoln Motor Co., 31 Ga. App. 229 (2) (120 S. E. 444).

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P¡ J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

1. In this suit to recover on a stock subscription the petition affirmatively disclosed such a state of facts as rendered the subscription voidable under the securities act (Ga. L. 1920, p. 250), and thus subject to general demurrer. On this question the case is controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Felton v. Highlands Hotel Co., [779]*779165 Ga. 598 (141 S. E.). Eor the reason stated the court erred in not sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing' the action. Whether the petition was bad in that it disclosed other defenses need not be decided and is not decided.

Decided March 3, 1928. John B. L. Smith, Joseph LeOonte Smith, M. G. Bennet, for plaintiff in error. Harry S. Strozier, Brock, Sparks & Bussell, contra.

2. “Where there has been no final judgment, a defendant can not, in a bill of exceptions to a judgment overruling his general demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition, properly except also to an order striking his answer.” Brown v. Marbut-Williams Lumber Co., 34 Ga. App. 348 (2) (129 S. E. 575); Chatham Motor Co. v. Lincoln Motor Co., 31 Ga. App. 229 (2) (120 S. E. 444).

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P¡ J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 S.E. 565, 37 Ga. App. 778, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cassini-v-highlands-hotel-co-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack