Ford v. American Discount Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ford v. American Discount Co.

145 S.E.2d 667, 112 Ga. App. 559, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 771

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 29, 1965

Docket41536

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 S.E.2d 667 (Ford v. American Discount 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

Ford v. American Discount Co., 145 S.E.2d 667, 112 Ga. App. 559, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 771 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The judgment of March 1, 1965, sustained a demurrer which attacked the petition for duplicity because the plaintiff sought to recover in one action on two [560]*560causes of action, each based on a separate telephone conversation to each defendant. The amendment filed on March 5, 1965, in which the plaintiff redrafted his petition, did not cure the defect held by the trial court to exist in its judgment of March 1. Accordingly, the later judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s petition as to American Discount Company was not error. The first judgment established the law of the case and the final judgment to which exception is taken which sustained the demurrer of American Discount Company on the ground that the redrafted petition did not correct the defect previously held to exist was not error for any reason assigned. See Northside Manor, Inc. v. Vann, 219 Ga. 298 (133 SE2d 32).

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.

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

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The judgment of March 1, 1965, sustained a demurrer which attacked the petition for duplicity because the plaintiff sought to recover in one action on two [560]*560causes of action, each based on a separate telephone conversation to each defendant. The amendment filed on March 5, 1965, in which the plaintiff redrafted his petition, did not cure the defect held by the trial court to exist in its judgment of March 1. Accordingly, the later judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s petition as to American Discount Company was not error. The first judgment established the law of the case and the final judgment to which exception is taken which sustained the demurrer of American Discount Company on the ground that the redrafted petition did not correct the defect previously held to exist was not error for any reason assigned. See Northside Manor, Inc. v. Vann, 219 Ga. 298 (133 SE2d 32).

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E.2d 667, 112 Ga. App. 559, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-american-discount-co-gactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack