Henderson v. Curtis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Henderson v. Curtis

197 S.E. 65, 57 Ga. App. 892, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 433

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 4, 1938·No. 26823·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Eeltoh, J.

Construing the petition against the plaintiff, this suit was one on an express contract, the alleged terms of which were too indefinite, vague, and uncertain to render it capable of being enforced. Therefore it was not error for the court to sustain the general demurrer to the petition. See, Henderson v. Curtis, 185 Ga. 390 (195 S. E. 152), transferring this case to this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur. Noah J. Stone, for plaintiff. G. S. Pede, for defendant.

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

Eeltoh, J.

Construing the petition against the plaintiff, this suit was one on an express contract, the alleged terms of which were too indefinite, vague, and uncertain to render it capable of being enforced. Therefore it was not error for the court to sustain the general demurrer to the petition. See, Henderson v. Curtis, 185 Ga. 390 (195 S. E. 152), transferring this case to this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur. Noah J. Stone, for plaintiff. G. S. Pede, for defendant.

Henderson v. Curtis, 197 S.E. 65, 57 Ga. App. 892, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 433 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

197 S.E. 65 (Henderson v. Curtis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related