Cox v. Burt
This text of 122 S.E. 631 (Cox v. Burt) 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
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The intention of the plaintiff, as manifested by the expressions quoted from the petition, in the statement of facts, seems clearly to indicate that as to the $206.35 item he based his right of recovery upon the defendant’s breach of the alleged contract set forth therein; and since no amendment was offered, striking or modifying either of the two items of damages sought to be recovered, the [121]*121petition was properly dismissed as embracing a misjoinder of actions. Wolff v. So. Ry. Co., 130 Ga. 251 (60 S. E. 569); Hartley v. Folds, 24 Ga. App. 456 (101 S. E. 130).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
122 S.E. 631, 32 Ga. App. 119, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-burt-gactapp-1924.