Jewel Tea Co. v. Rowling

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jewel Tea Co. v. Rowling

194 S.E. 397, 57 Ga. App. 123, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 555

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 4, 1937

Docket26314

StatusPublished

This text of 194 S.E. 397 (Jewel Tea Co. v. Rowling) 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

Jewel Tea Co. v. Rowling, 194 S.E. 397, 57 Ga. App. 123, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 555 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, P. J.

This case, which is a suit by a wife for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the negligence of the defendant arising from the same transaction on which is based her husband’s suit to recover of the same defendant for loss of the wife’s services, is controlled by the decision in the case of the husband, ante, 116. The petition set out a cause of action, and was good against the general and special demurrers; and the evidence authorized the verdict for the plaintiff. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer, and in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial, which was based on the general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.-

Sutton and Felton, JJ., concur.

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

Stephens, P. J.

This case, which is a suit by a wife for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the negligence of the defendant arising from the same transaction on which is based her husband’s suit to recover of the same defendant for loss of the wife’s services, is controlled by the decision in the case of the husband, ante, 116. The petition set out a cause of action, and was good against the general and special demurrers; and the evidence authorized the verdict for the plaintiff. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer, and in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial, which was based on the general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.-

Sutton and Felton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 S.E. 397, 57 Ga. App. 123, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jewel-tea-co-v-rowling-gactapp-1937.