Dillard v. Mobley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dillard v. Mobley

158 S.E. 534, 43 Ga. App. 253, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 288

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 20, 1931

Docket20867

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 158 S.E. 534 (Dillard v. Mobley) 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

Dillard v. Mobley, 158 S.E. 534, 43 Ga. App. 253, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 288 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

This case is controlled by the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Mobley v. Phinizy, 172 Ga. 339 (157 S. E. 182). The superintendent of banks, as plaintiff, sought to enforce a stockholder’s liability against the defendant by reason of her having owned certain shares of stock in a defunct bank, which had been transferred before the bank failed. The petition failed to allege' that the debts of the bank on account of which it was sought to hold the stockholder liable were created at a time when the stock was owned by the defendant. Under the Supreme-Court ruling stated, the petition was subject to the demurrer pointing out this defect. Since the court erred in overruling the demurrer, all proceedings thereafter were nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., eoneur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

This case is controlled by the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Mobley v. Phinizy, 172 Ga. 339 (157 S. E. 182). The superintendent of banks, as plaintiff, sought to enforce a stockholder’s liability against the defendant by reason of her having owned certain shares of stock in a defunct bank, which had been transferred before the bank failed. The petition failed to allege' that the debts of the bank on account of which it was sought to hold the stockholder liable were created at a time when the stock was owned by the defendant. Under the Supreme-Court ruling stated, the petition was subject to the demurrer pointing out this defect. Since the court erred in overruling the demurrer, all proceedings thereafter were nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 534, 43 Ga. App. 253, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dillard-v-mobley-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack