Cheatham v. Griffin Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Cheatham v. Griffin Co.

185 S.E. 282, 182 Ga. 265, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 330

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 28, 1936

DocketNo. 10834

StatusPublished

This text of 185 S.E. 282 (Cheatham v. Griffin Co.) 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

Cheatham v. Griffin Co., 185 S.E. 282, 182 Ga. 265, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 330 (Ga. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

Under the allegations of the petition as amended, the plaintiff is a mere holding company, an agent of [271]*271two merging banks and the consolidated institution, and its sole duty related to execution of certain details in tbe plan of merger. The consolidated bank failed, and its affairs were taken over by the State superintendent of banks, whose duty it was to administer for the benefit of all persons at interest all the assets including those that were not turned over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not have an individual interest. The bank’s interests have now devolved upon the State superintendent of banks. His administration can not be interrupted either by the banks directly or by the plaintiff as their agent. The petition failed to allege a cause of action, and the court erred in overruling the general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Atkinson, Justice.

Under the allegations of the petition as amended, the plaintiff is a mere holding company, an agent of [271]*271two merging banks and the consolidated institution, and its sole duty related to execution of certain details in tbe plan of merger. The consolidated bank failed, and its affairs were taken over by the State superintendent of banks, whose duty it was to administer for the benefit of all persons at interest all the assets including those that were not turned over to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not have an individual interest. The bank’s interests have now devolved upon the State superintendent of banks. His administration can not be interrupted either by the banks directly or by the plaintiff as their agent. The petition failed to allege a cause of action, and the court erred in overruling the general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E. 282, 182 Ga. 265, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheatham-v-griffin-co-ga-1936.