Jones v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jones v. City of Atlanta

133 S.E. 521, 35 Ga. App. 376, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 365

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 12, 1926

Docket17196

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 133 S.E. 521 (Jones v. City of Atlanta) 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

Jones v. City of Atlanta, 133 S.E. 521, 35 Ga. App. 376, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 365 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles, C. J.

The facts of this case are almost identical with those of Cornelisen v. Atlanta, 19 Ga. App. 436 (91 S. E. 510), and the decision in that case is controlling. The petition, properly construed as a whole and most strongly against the petitioner, clearly shows that tile park in question (Piedmont park) and the bathing lake therein, at the time of the alleged injury sued for, were maintained by the city primarily for the use of the public, and intended as places of resort for pleasure and promotion of health of the public at large, and that any pecuniary profit resulting to the city from the operation of the park or the lake was purely incidental. The court, therefore, properly dismissed the ease, on the demurrer interposed.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Bboyles, C. J.

The facts of this case are almost identical with those of Cornelisen v. Atlanta, 19 Ga. App. 436 (91 S. E. 510), and the decision in that case is controlling. The petition, properly construed as a whole and most strongly against the petitioner, clearly shows that tile park in question (Piedmont park) and the bathing lake therein, at the time of the alleged injury sued for, were maintained by the city primarily for the use of the public, and intended as places of resort for pleasure and promotion of health of the public at large, and that any pecuniary profit resulting to the city from the operation of the park or the lake was purely incidental. The court, therefore, properly dismissed the ease, on the demurrer interposed.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E. 521, 35 Ga. App. 376, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack