Cone v. Glidden Stores Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cone v. Glidden Stores Co.

136 S.E. 170, 36 Ga. App. 246, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 898

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 20, 1926

Docket17392

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 S.E. 170 (Cone v. Glidden Stores 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

Cone v. Glidden Stores Co., 136 S.E. 170, 36 Ga. App. 246, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 898 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

The bill of exceptions in this case complains of a judgment of the superior court dismissing a certiorari. The Glidden Stores Company brought suit in the municipal court of Atlanta against Charles Cone Bealty Company, a corporation, and Charles Cone individually. Attached as an exhibit to the summons was the following alleged cause of action:

“Exhibit *A’.

The Glidden Stores Company

Jap-a-lac

Date — December 12th, 1924.

Chas. Cone Bealty Co. &

Chas. Cone.

June — 1924.

For material, $677.47.”

The defendants answered the suit by a general appearance made by their attorneys in conformity with sections 36 and 37 of the act creating the municipal court of Atlanta (Ga. L. 1913, p. 145). The trial court overruled the motion of the defendants, in the nature of a general demurrer, to dismiss the action. It appears that the plaintiff sued out a garnishment, which the defendants dissolved by a bond on which B. F. Davis and A. B. Tumlin were sureties. The court rendered the following judgment: “The within case coming on to be heard and due weight having been given the evidence, it is hereby considered, ordered, and adjudged, and is ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff, the Glidden Stores Co* recover from the defendant, Chas. Cone Bealty Co., and Chas. Cone and B. F. Davis and A. B. Tumlin securities on the bond to dissolve garnishment, the principal sum of $677.47 and cost of suit. This the 9th day of March, 1925.” The petition for certiorari alleged that “there was absolutely no legal proof or evidence to support said judgment, there being no proof submitted of the correctness of the alleged claim sued upon — neither as to charges nor as to delivery, nor as to credits for payments made, as your petitioner is advised and believes. And there certainly was no proof submitted to authorize or support a judgment against B. F. Davis and A. B. Tumlin.” These allegations were verified by the trial judge in his answer to the certiorari. The assign[248]*248ments of error in the record raised the questions decided in the headnotes. Under the rulings made therein, the superior court erred in not sustaining the certiorari.

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.

The bill of exceptions in this case complains of a judgment of the superior court dismissing a certiorari. The Glidden Stores Company brought suit in the municipal court of Atlanta against Charles Cone Bealty Company, a corporation, and Charles Cone individually. Attached as an exhibit to the summons was the following alleged cause of action:

“Exhibit *A’.

The Glidden Stores Company

Jap-a-lac

Date — December 12th, 1924.

Chas. Cone Bealty Co. &

Chas. Cone.

June — 1924.

For material, $677.47.”

The defendants answered the suit by a general appearance made by their attorneys in conformity with sections 36 and 37 of the act creating the municipal court of Atlanta (Ga. L. 1913, p. 145). The trial court overruled the motion of the defendants, in the nature of a general demurrer, to dismiss the action. It appears that the plaintiff sued out a garnishment, which the defendants dissolved by a bond on which B. F. Davis and A. B. Tumlin were sureties. The court rendered the following judgment: “The within case coming on to be heard and due weight having been given the evidence, it is hereby considered, ordered, and adjudged, and is ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff, the Glidden Stores Co* recover from the defendant, Chas. Cone Bealty Co., and Chas. Cone and B. F. Davis and A. B. Tumlin securities on the bond to dissolve garnishment, the principal sum of $677.47 and cost of suit. This the 9th day of March, 1925.” The petition for certiorari alleged that “there was absolutely no legal proof or evidence to support said judgment, there being no proof submitted of the correctness of the alleged claim sued upon — neither as to charges nor as to delivery, nor as to credits for payments made, as your petitioner is advised and believes. And there certainly was no proof submitted to authorize or support a judgment against B. F. Davis and A. B. Tumlin.” These allegations were verified by the trial judge in his answer to the certiorari. The assign[248]*248ments of error in the record raised the questions decided in the headnotes. Under the rulings made therein, the superior court erred in not sustaining the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.E. 170, 36 Ga. App. 246, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cone-v-glidden-stores-co-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack