Howard v. Christopher

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Howard v. Christopher

39 S.E.2d 496, 74 Ga. App. 203, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 485

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 5, 1946

Docket31337, 31338.

StatusPublished

This text of 39 S.E.2d 496 (Howard v. Christopher) 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

Howard v. Christopher, 39 S.E.2d 496, 74 Ga. App. 203, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 485 (Ga. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Parker, J.

The petitions in these eases are alike, except as to the amounts involved, each being an action on open account for services alleged to have been rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant’s ward as a caretaker and laborer on her farm sometime before March 15, 1941. . No bill of particulars or itemized statement of account was attached in either ease, as required by the Code, § 81-105, and no dates were alleged showing when the services began or when they were rendered, or what price was to be paid for any particular service, or how much time was consumed in rendering the service. A general and special demurrer was filed to the petition in each case, and no amendment was filed and allowed by the court strengthening or amplifying the allegations. It appears that the demurrers came on regulai'ly to be heard after notice to all the parties, approximately ten months after the actions were brought, and they were properly sustained on the ground that the *204 accounts were defectively set forth, and that the defendant was entitled to more specific information. See Busby v. Marshall, 125 Ga. 645 (3) (54 S. E. 646); Overstreet v. Nashville Lumber Co., 127 Ga. 458 (56 S. E. 650).

Decided September 5, 1946. William A. Thomas, for plaintiffs. Beck, Goodrich tí- Beck, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed im each case.

Sutton, P. J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Parker, J.

The petitions in these eases are alike, except as to the amounts involved, each being an action on open account for services alleged to have been rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant’s ward as a caretaker and laborer on her farm sometime before March 15, 1941. . No bill of particulars or itemized statement of account was attached in either ease, as required by the Code, § 81-105, and no dates were alleged showing when the services began or when they were rendered, or what price was to be paid for any particular service, or how much time was consumed in rendering the service. A general and special demurrer was filed to the petition in each case, and no amendment was filed and allowed by the court strengthening or amplifying the allegations. It appears that the demurrers came on regulai'ly to be heard after notice to all the parties, approximately ten months after the actions were brought, and they were properly sustained on the ground that the *204 accounts were defectively set forth, and that the defendant was entitled to more specific information. See Busby v. Marshall, 125 Ga. 645 (3) (54 S. E. 646); Overstreet v. Nashville Lumber Co., 127 Ga. 458 (56 S. E. 650).

Decided September 5, 1946. William A. Thomas, for plaintiffs. Beck, Goodrich tí- Beck, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed im each case.

Sutton, P. J., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 S.E.2d 496, 74 Ga. App. 203, 1946 Ga. App. LEXIS 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-christopher-gactapp-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack