Edgley v. Columbus Iron Works Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Edgley v. Columbus Iron Works Co.

123 S.E. 748, 32 Ga. App. 426, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 436

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 10, 1924·No. 15507·Published

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

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.

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

Pincite

123 S.E. 748 (Edgley v. Columbus Iron Works Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related