Lott v. Union Banking Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lott v. Union Banking Co.

168 S.E. 867, 176 Ga. 753, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 280

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 18, 1933

DocketNo. 9397

StatusPublished

This text of 168 S.E. 867 (Lott v. Union Banking Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 S.E. 867, 176 Ga. 753, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lott-v-union-banking-co-ga-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack