Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Edgley v. Columbus Iron Works Co.

Edgley v. Columbus Iron Works Co.

123 S.E. 748, 32 Ga. App. 426, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 436
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 10, 1924
Docket15507
StatusPublished

This text of 123 S.E. 748 (Edgley v. Columbus Iron Works 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
Edgley v. Columbus Iron Works Co., 123 S.E. 748, 32 Ga. App. 426, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Opinion

Bdoodwoktii, J.

The petition contains allegations appropriate' to an action to recover damages for a breach of a contract or for damages founded in tprt. The petition having been demurred to as duplicitous, and the plaintiff not having elected which cause of action he would pursue, the demurrer was properly sustained. Brooks v. Tucker, 29 Ga. App. 795 (116 S. E. 552), and eases cited; Central Railroad Co. v. Pickett, 87 Ga. 734 (1), 735 (1) (13 S. E. 50).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur. M. H. Norris, for plaintiff. A. W. Gozarb, for defendant.

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

Related

Central Railroad v. Pickett & Blair
13 S.E. 750 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1891)
Brooks v. Tucker
116 S.E. 552 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 S.E. 748, 32 Ga. App. 426, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edgley-v-columbus-iron-works-co-gactapp-1924.