Lott v. Union Banking Co.

168 S.E. 867, 176 Ga. 753, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 280
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 18, 1933·No. No. 9397·Published

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Under authority of Reviere v. Chambliss, 120 Ga. 714 (48 S. E. 122), the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petition. And see Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Union Investment Co., 128 Co. 74 (57 S. E. 100) ; Bank of Hamilton v. Williams, 146 Ga. 96 (90 S. E. 718). This case differs in its facts from Salzburger Bank v. Standard Oil Co., 173 Co. 722 (161 S. E. 584).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Sapp & Pames, for plaintiff. Kelley & Dickerson, for defendant.

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

Lott v. Union Banking Co., 168 S.E. 867, 176 Ga. 753, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 280 (Ga. 1933).

168 S.E. 867 (Lott v. Union Banking Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reviere v. Chambliss
48 S.E. 122 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Union Investment Co.
57 S.E. 100 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Bank of Hamilton v. Williams
90 S.E. 718 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Salzburger Bank v. Standard Oil Co.
161 S.E. 584 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)