Conner v. Wright

Supreme Court of Georgia

Conner v. Wright

41 S.E.2d 158, 201 Ga. 753, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 314

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 8, 1947

Docket15652.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 41 S.E.2d 158 (Conner v. Wright) 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

Conner v. Wright, 41 S.E.2d 158, 201 Ga. 753, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 314 (Ga. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Head, Justice.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Assuming, but not deciding, that the amendments may have been sufficient to meet the rulings of this court as to divisions 2 and 4 of the opinion in Wright v. Conner, 200 Ga. 413, the petition was fatally defective under the rulings made in division 3. The amendment did *754 not purport to enlarge upon the alleged acts of omission as set forth in the original petition, and which were held, in division 5 of the opinion in Wright v. Conner, supra, to be insufficient to authorize a forfeiture of the life-tenant’s estate. The petition as finally amended must proceed, if at all, on waste alleged, the cutting of timber. In division 3 of the court’s previous rulings, it was held that the demurrer, setting up a bar to the action as contravening the period of limitations as to the alleged acts of waste, was good and should have been sustained. This ruling became the law of the ease. Sanderlin v. Sanderlin, 27 Ga. 334; Allen v. Schweigert, 113 Ga. 69 (38 S. E. 397) ; W. & A. R. Co. v. Third Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 125 Ga. 489 (54 S. E. 621); Rivers v. Brown, 200 Ga. 49 (36 S. E. 2d, 429). It follows that the trial court properly sustained the demurrers to the petition as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Head, Justice.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Assuming, but not deciding, that the amendments may have been sufficient to meet the rulings of this court as to divisions 2 and 4 of the opinion in Wright v. Conner, 200 Ga. 413, the petition was fatally defective under the rulings made in division 3. The amendment did *754 not purport to enlarge upon the alleged acts of omission as set forth in the original petition, and which were held, in division 5 of the opinion in Wright v. Conner, supra, to be insufficient to authorize a forfeiture of the life-tenant’s estate. The petition as finally amended must proceed, if at all, on waste alleged, the cutting of timber. In division 3 of the court’s previous rulings, it was held that the demurrer, setting up a bar to the action as contravening the period of limitations as to the alleged acts of waste, was good and should have been sustained. This ruling became the law of the ease. Sanderlin v. Sanderlin, 27 Ga. 334; Allen v. Schweigert, 113 Ga. 69 (38 S. E. 397) ; W. & A. R. Co. v. Third Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 125 Ga. 489 (54 S. E. 621); Rivers v. Brown, 200 Ga. 49 (36 S. E. 2d, 429). It follows that the trial court properly sustained the demurrers to the petition as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 S.E.2d 158, 201 Ga. 753, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conner-v-wright-ga-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack