Howard v. Citizens & Southern Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Howard v. Citizens & Southern Bank

122 S.E. 717, 32 Ga. App. 22, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 226

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1924

Docket15267

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 122 S.E. 717 (Howard v. Citizens & Southern Bank) 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. Citizens & Southern Bank, 122 S.E. 717, 32 Ga. App. 22, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 226 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The petition contained several counts. A general demurrer to the first count was overruled, and to this judgment no exceptions were taken. This ruling, therefore, “made the law of the case, and was a conclusive determination that a right of action existed in favor of 'the plaintiff.” The case proceeded to trial, and the undisputed evidence introduced clearly established the plaintiff’s case as laid in the first count of her petition. The plaintiff,^ therefore, was entitled to a verdict and judgment in her favor for the amount sued for in the first count of her petition (Pierpont Mfg. Co. v. Mayor &c. of Savannah, 153 Ga. 455 (1), 457 (1), 112 S. E. 462, and citations), and the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant and in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

(a) As to this feature of the case, the sole contention of counsel for the defendant is that the evidence failed to prove the plaintiff’s allegation that the Jesup Banking Company, of Jesup, Georgia, was the agent of the defendant. In our opinion the evidence for the plaintiff, coupled with the evidence for the defendant, demanded a finding for the plaintiff on this issue.

2. The above ruling being controlling in the case, it is unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The petition contained several counts. A general demurrer to the first count was overruled, and to this judgment no exceptions were taken. This ruling, therefore, “made the law of the case, and was a conclusive determination that a right of action existed in favor of 'the plaintiff.” The case proceeded to trial, and the undisputed evidence introduced clearly established the plaintiff’s case as laid in the first count of her petition. The plaintiff,^ therefore, was entitled to a verdict and judgment in her favor for the amount sued for in the first count of her petition (Pierpont Mfg. Co. v. Mayor &c. of Savannah, 153 Ga. 455 (1), 457 (1), 112 S. E. 462, and citations), and the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant and in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

(a) As to this feature of the case, the sole contention of counsel for the defendant is that the evidence failed to prove the plaintiff’s allegation that the Jesup Banking Company, of Jesup, Georgia, was the agent of the defendant. In our opinion the evidence for the plaintiff, coupled with the evidence for the defendant, demanded a finding for the plaintiff on this issue.

2. The above ruling being controlling in the case, it is unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 717, 32 Ga. App. 22, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-citizens-southern-bank-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack