Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. Bradshaw

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. Bradshaw

124 S.E.2d 657, 105 Ga. App. 416, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 940

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 23, 1962

Docket39232

StatusPublished

This text of 124 S.E.2d 657 (Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. Bradshaw) 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

Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. Bradshaw, 124 S.E.2d 657, 105 Ga. App. 416, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 940 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

The petition alleges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in a stated amount for premiums on in-' surance policies, showing the number of each policy, the effective dates and the premium due on each. It fully apprizes the defendant of the character of the plaintiff’s demand, so as to enable him to prepare his defense. It does not affirmatively disclose a want of defendant’s liability, nor contain any defect that can be successfully attacked by general demurrer. It therefore is sufficient to state a cause of action on open account. Henry Darling, Inc. v. Harvey-Given Co., 40 Ga. App. 771 (151 SE 518); Holcombe v. Parker, 98 Ga. App. 17 (104 SE2d 595); Southern Wire & Iron, Inc. v. American Cas. Co., 103 Ga. App. 267 (118 SE2d 859).

The cases of Jones v. Gilbert, 93 Ga. 604 (20 SE 48); Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Williams, 1 Ga. App. 603 (57 SE 1018); and Associated Mutuals, Inc. v. Pope Lumber Co., 200 Ga. 487 (37 SE2d 393), relied on by the defendant, deal with the effect of evidence introduced on the trial, in support or in defense, of actions involving insurance contracts and premiums, and those decisions do not affect the present question.

[418]*418The trial court erred in sustaining the renewed demurrer and in dismissing the petition.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Hall, Judge.

The petition alleges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in a stated amount for premiums on in-' surance policies, showing the number of each policy, the effective dates and the premium due on each. It fully apprizes the defendant of the character of the plaintiff’s demand, so as to enable him to prepare his defense. It does not affirmatively disclose a want of defendant’s liability, nor contain any defect that can be successfully attacked by general demurrer. It therefore is sufficient to state a cause of action on open account. Henry Darling, Inc. v. Harvey-Given Co., 40 Ga. App. 771 (151 SE 518); Holcombe v. Parker, 98 Ga. App. 17 (104 SE2d 595); Southern Wire & Iron, Inc. v. American Cas. Co., 103 Ga. App. 267 (118 SE2d 859).

The cases of Jones v. Gilbert, 93 Ga. 604 (20 SE 48); Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Williams, 1 Ga. App. 603 (57 SE 1018); and Associated Mutuals, Inc. v. Pope Lumber Co., 200 Ga. 487 (37 SE2d 393), relied on by the defendant, deal with the effect of evidence introduced on the trial, in support or in defense, of actions involving insurance contracts and premiums, and those decisions do not affect the present question.

[418]*418The trial court erred in sustaining the renewed demurrer and in dismissing the petition.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 S.E.2d 657, 105 Ga. App. 416, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-casualty-surety-co-v-bradshaw-gactapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack