Clay v. Drake
This text of 66 Ga. App. 544 (Clay v. Drake) 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.
Opinion
It will be noted from the allegations of the petition that the money in question was paid to the defendant and that he still holds it. We think the petition sets out a cause of action, when considered under the rulings of Dennison Manufacturing Co. v. Wright, 156 Ga. 789 (120 S. E. 120); Strachan Shipping Co. v. Savannah, 168 Ga. 309, 315 (147 S. E. 555); Herrington v. [550]*550State, 103 Ga. 318 (29 S. E. 931). We do not think it would make any difference that the ordinance in question was declared unconstitutional in another case made under it against a different party. See in this connection United States v. Rothstein, 187 Fed. 268 (109 C. C. A. 521).
In our opinion the money was paid involuntarily. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the same under the principles laid down in Parrot v. Wilson, 51 Ga. 255; Fischesser v. Heard, 42 Ga. 531.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 Ga. App. 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-drake-gactapp-1942.