Georgia Fertilizer & Oil Co. v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Fertilizer & Oil Co. v. Johnson

89 S.E. 344, 18 Ga. App. 281, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 291

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 26, 1916

Docket6910

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 344 (Georgia Fertilizer & Oil Co. v. Johnson) 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 Fertilizer & Oil Co. v. Johnson, 89 S.E. 344, 18 Ga. App. 281, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 291 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

In St. Louis Lightning Rod Co. v. Johnson, ante, 190 (89 S. E. 169), the form.of the petition, so far as it relates to the designation of the parties, is like that of the petition in. this case, and in both cases the same question was raised by the demurrer to the petition. It was there held that the court erred in rejecting a proffered amendment adding the words “plaintiff” and “defendant” respectively after the names of the parties appearing in the caption. In this case no amendment was offered, and the court did not err in dismissing the petition as to the defendant Johnson, since it failed to indicate which party named in the caption was the plaintiff or which was the. defendant. 'The judgment sustaining the demurrer is affirmed, subject, however, to the right of the plaintiff to cure the defect pointed out by the demurrer, by proper amendment in the lower court, in accordance with the ruling [282]*282in St. Louis Lightning Rod Co. v. Johnson, supra; in which event the case shall be reinstated and the demurrer overruled.

Decided June 26, 1916.

Complaint; from city court of Thomasville — Judge W. H.-Hammond. July 7, 1915.

Titus, Delete & Hoplcins, for plaintiff in error. O. E. Hay, contra.

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

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

Wade, C. J.

In St. Louis Lightning Rod Co. v. Johnson, ante, 190 (89 S. E. 169), the form.of the petition, so far as it relates to the designation of the parties, is like that of the petition in. this case, and in both cases the same question was raised by the demurrer to the petition. It was there held that the court erred in rejecting a proffered amendment adding the words “plaintiff” and “defendant” respectively after the names of the parties appearing in the caption. In this case no amendment was offered, and the court did not err in dismissing the petition as to the defendant Johnson, since it failed to indicate which party named in the caption was the plaintiff or which was the. defendant. 'The judgment sustaining the demurrer is affirmed, subject, however, to the right of the plaintiff to cure the defect pointed out by the demurrer, by proper amendment in the lower court, in accordance with the ruling [282]*282in St. Louis Lightning Rod Co. v. Johnson, supra; in which event the case shall be reinstated and the demurrer overruled.

Decided June 26, 1916.

Complaint; from city court of Thomasville — Judge W. H.-Hammond. July 7, 1915.

Titus, Delete & Hoplcins, for plaintiff in error. O. E. Hay, contra.

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 344, 18 Ga. App. 281, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-fertilizer-oil-co-v-johnson-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack