Martin v. Sudderth

Supreme Court of Georgia

Martin v. Sudderth

93 S.E.2d 720, 212 Ga. 558, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 443

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 10, 1956

Docket19404

StatusPublished

This text of 93 S.E.2d 720 (Martin v. Sudderth) 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

Martin v. Sudderth, 93 S.E.2d 720, 212 Ga. 558, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 443 (Ga. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The amended petition against Leo Sudderth, Chairman of the Board of Tax Assessors for the City of Atlanta and County of Fulton, and T. E. Suttles, Tax Commissioner, by Esther L. Martin, seeks no relief except that the defendants be enjoined from receiving further tax returns and further tax money on property located at No. 18 Memorial Drive, S. W., Atlanta, Georgia, from Harold E. Chester, and that tax returns and tax money be charged to the legal owner of said land, the petition having alleged that such owner was Carolyn Cooper. It is obvious that no cause of action is alleged, and the court did not err in sustaining the defendants’ demurrers and dismissing the amended petition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

The amended petition against Leo Sudderth, Chairman of the Board of Tax Assessors for the City of Atlanta and County of Fulton, and T. E. Suttles, Tax Commissioner, by Esther L. Martin, seeks no relief except that the defendants be enjoined from receiving further tax returns and further tax money on property located at No. 18 Memorial Drive, S. W., Atlanta, Georgia, from Harold E. Chester, and that tax returns and tax money be charged to the legal owner of said land, the petition having alleged that such owner was Carolyn Cooper. It is obvious that no cause of action is alleged, and the court did not err in sustaining the defendants’ demurrers and dismissing the amended petition.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E.2d 720, 212 Ga. 558, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-sudderth-ga-1956.