Industrial Life & Health Insurance v. Young
This text of 175 S.E. 271 (Industrial Life & Health Insurance v. Young) 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.
Opinion
1. The special demurrer complaining that a copy of the policy of insurance sued upon was not attached to the petition was properly overruled, it being alleged in the petition that the defendant, through its authorized agent, D. T. Browning, without the plaintiff’s consent, destroyed the policy by tearing it up. See, in this connection, Spalding Construction Co. v. Simon, 36 Ga. App. 723, 726 (3) (137 S. E. 901).
2. “An averment that an agent was ‘duly authorized’ to act for his principal is not objectionable as being a conclusion.” Kiser v. Padrick, 30 Ga. App. 642 (13) (118 S. E. 791).
3. The petition as amended was not subject to any ground of the demurrer interposed, and the court properly so held.
4. While the evidence was in acute conflict, this court can not hold that the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was not supported by any evidence; and, as the special grounds of the motion for a new trial show no reversible error, the judgment is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
175 S.E. 271, 49 Ga. App. 293, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/industrial-life-health-insurance-v-young-gactapp-1934.