Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Howe v. Bernheim Distilling Co.

Howe v. Bernheim Distilling Co.

70 S.E. 176, 8 Ga. App. 771, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 142
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 15, 1911·No. 2530·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Russell, J.

The court did not err in striking the plea, because the action was proceeding ex contractu, and the defendant attempted to set off a. matter ex delicto and to obtain a judgment against the plaintiff. The [772]*772decision of the case is controlled by the ruling in Hecht v. Snook, 114 Ga. 921 (41 S. E. 74). Judgment affirmed.

Decided February 15, 1911. . Complaint; from city court of Americus — Judge Crisp. February 4, 1910. o Shipp & 'Sheppard, for plaintiff in error. Allen Fort & Son, contra.

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

Howe v. Bernheim Distilling Co., 70 S.E. 176, 8 Ga. App. 771, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 142 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

70 S.E. 176 (Howe v. Bernheim Distilling Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Janes v. City of Cedartown
80 S.E. 339 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)
Jones v. George S. Riley Jr. Co.
80 S.E. 341 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)