Greenwood v. Stewart

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Greenwood v. Stewart

72 S.E.2d 539, 86 Ga. App. 764, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 1050

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 16, 1952

Docket34232

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 S.E.2d 539 (Greenwood v. Stewart) 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

Greenwood v. Stewart, 72 S.E.2d 539, 86 Ga. App. 764, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 1050 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

1. (a) The statutory or “Jack Jones” forms of pleading (Ga. L. 1847, p. 203 et seq.) were not repealed by the Practice and Pleading Act of 1893 (Code § 81-103), and the language used in the declarations therein for the recovery of real estate or personal property, “. . to which your petitioner claims title”, is a sufficient allegation of title in the plaintiff to support the action (Dugas v. Hammond, 130 Ga. 87, 60 S. E. 268) and “should be regarded as containing all the substantial and necessary averments of the common-law form for the same kind of action.” See also Breen v. Barfield, 80 Ga. App. 615 (56 S. E. 2d, 791).

(b) The ruling in Crews v. Roberson, 62 Ga. App. 855 (10 S. E. 2d, 114), that the phrase “to which your petitioner claims title” in a statutory trover form is “a simple, direct statement of the ultimate fact which is determinative of the whole case, and by the will of the legislature, as expressed by the Jack Jones act of 1847, this is sufficient,” is directly in line with the decision in Dugas v. Hammond, supra, and the request that this ruling be disapproved is hereby denied.

(c) Accordingly, a special demurrer directed at that portion of a statutory declaration in trover alleging that “the defendant in this action is in possession of the following property, to wit: 7 $100 United States Savings Bonds, Series E [numbers furnished] of the value of seven hundred dollars, to which your petitioner claims title” on the ground that “it is not shown upon what grounds plaintiff claims title” was properly overruled. The case was brought here by direct bill of exceptions, and the only error argued or insisted upon is the overruling of this special demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, PJ., and Carlisle, J., concur.

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

Townsend, J.

1. (a) The statutory or “Jack Jones” forms of pleading (Ga. L. 1847, p. 203 et seq.) were not repealed by the Practice and Pleading Act of 1893 (Code § 81-103), and the language used in the declarations therein for the recovery of real estate or personal property, “. . to which your petitioner claims title”, is a sufficient allegation of title in the plaintiff to support the action (Dugas v. Hammond, 130 Ga. 87, 60 S. E. 268) and “should be regarded as containing all the substantial and necessary averments of the common-law form for the same kind of action.” See also Breen v. Barfield, 80 Ga. App. 615 (56 S. E. 2d, 791).

(b) The ruling in Crews v. Roberson, 62 Ga. App. 855 (10 S. E. 2d, 114), that the phrase “to which your petitioner claims title” in a statutory trover form is “a simple, direct statement of the ultimate fact which is determinative of the whole case, and by the will of the legislature, as expressed by the Jack Jones act of 1847, this is sufficient,” is directly in line with the decision in Dugas v. Hammond, supra, and the request that this ruling be disapproved is hereby denied.

(c) Accordingly, a special demurrer directed at that portion of a statutory declaration in trover alleging that “the defendant in this action is in possession of the following property, to wit: 7 $100 United States Savings Bonds, Series E [numbers furnished] of the value of seven hundred dollars, to which your petitioner claims title” on the ground that “it is not shown upon what grounds plaintiff claims title” was properly overruled. The case was brought here by direct bill of exceptions, and the only error argued or insisted upon is the overruling of this special demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, PJ., and Carlisle, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E.2d 539, 86 Ga. App. 764, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 1050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenwood-v-stewart-gactapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack