Gunter v. Mooney
72 Ga. 205
Opinion
Held, that the plaintiff could not maintain an action of covenant on the agreement set out, he not being a party or privy to the same, but a mere stranger, and the case was properly dismissed on‘demurrer. 1 Chitty Pl., 20, 3 and cit.
(a.) Section 2747 of the Code does not militate-against this view.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gunter v. Mooney, 72 Ga. 205 (Ga. 1883).
72 Ga. 205 (Gunter v. Mooney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Guest v. Stone
56 S.E.2d 247 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Veruki v. Burke
44 S.E.2d 906 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Avary v. Avary
41 S.E.2d 314 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Ragan v. National City Bank
170 S.E. 889 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Manget v. National City Bank
149 S.E. 213 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
Peebles v. Perkins
140 S.E. 360 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)
Reid v. Whisenant
131 S.E. 904 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Shropshire v. Rainey
104 S.E. 414 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)
Crawford v. Wilson
78 S.E. 30 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)
Sheppard v. Bridges
74 S.E. 245 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1912)
Furr v. Burns
53 S.E. 201 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Cooper v. Claxton
50 S.E. 399 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Hawkins v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
46 S.E. 82 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)