Ferrell v. Greenway & Co.

122 S.E. 198, 157 Ga. 535, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 196
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 14, 1924
DocketNo. 3843
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 122 S.E. 198 (Ferrell v. Greenway & Co.) 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
Ferrell v. Greenway & Co., 122 S.E. 198, 157 Ga. 535, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 196 (Ga. 1924).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. The petition, construed most strongly against the pleader, is subject to special demurrer on the ground that it joins in one action separate and distinct causes of action against separate and distinct parties between whom there is no unity or privity of interest.

2. Paragraphs seven and eight of the petition are subject to special demurrer on the grounds that the allegations therein made set forth conclusions of the pleader of law and of fact, and are not pleaded with the degree of definiteness and particularity required by law.

(a) The case differs from Jackson v. Johnson, 157 Ga. 189 (120 S. E. 230), which did not involve a usurious transaction based on a loan of money.

3. In view of the fact that the demurrer was both general and special and was expressly sustained upon all the grounds thereof, and the probability that, if the judge had intimated or announced his intention to sustain the special demurrers mentioned in the preceding head-notes, the plaintiff would have prevented a dismissal of his petition by offering a proper amendment thereto, and the further fact that the j petition presents a meritorious ease, the judgment is affirmed, witii direction that the plaintiff be allowed to amend the petition in the respect above indicated, before the judgment of this court is made the judgment of the court below, and upon compliance with this direction by the plaintiff the ease stand for trial upon the petition as amended; but that upon his failure to do this, the judgment below be unconditionally affirmed. Civil Code, § 6205; Brown v. Bowman, 119 Ga. 153 (46 S. E. 410); Sims v. Cordele Ice Co., 119 Ga. 597 (46 S. E. 841).

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

All the Justices concur. F. W. Flint and IF. I. Heyward, for plaintiff. B. B. Jaclcson, for defendants.

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

Related

Newton v. Newton
27 S.E.2d 31 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Hall v. Browning
24 S.E.2d 392 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Georgia Power Company v. Thompson
16 S.E.2d 115 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Howell v. Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills
4 S.E.2d 181 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
McRae v. Sears
187 S.E. 664 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Sutton v. Adams
178 S.E. 365 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Jackson v. Jackson
177 S.E. 591 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Irons v. American National Bank
172 S.E. 629 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Tinsley v. Maddox
168 S.E. 297 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Lowry v. City Investment Co.
163 S.E. 208 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Darnell v. Toney
154 S.E. 379 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Lawrence v. Patterson
153 S.E. 29 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)
Bowen v. Morris
123 So. 222 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Flood v. Empire Investment Co.
133 S.E. 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
McLamb v. Jackson
128 S.E. 580 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
Atlanta Finance Co. v. Fulwiler
124 S.E. 689 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 S.E. 198, 157 Ga. 535, 1924 Ga. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferrell-v-greenway-co-ga-1924.