McCullough v. Atlantic Refining Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

McCullough v. Atlantic Refining Co.

182 S.E. 898, 181 Ga. 502, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 144

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 11, 1935

DocketNo. 10725

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 182 S.E. 898 (McCullough v. Atlantic Refining 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

McCullough v. Atlantic Refining Co., 182 S.E. 898, 181 Ga. 502, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 144 (Ga. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Hutcheson, Justice.

1. “The Supreme Court or tlie Court of Appeals shall not decide any question unless it is made by a specific assignment of error in the bill of exceptions, and shall decide any question . made by such assignment.” Code of 1933, § 6-1607.

2. Misjoinder of causes of action must be taken advantage of by special demurrer, and is not ground for general demurrer. Ga. R. Co. v. Tice, 124 Ga. 459 (52 S. E. 916, 4 Ann. Cas. 200); Riley v. Royal Arcanum, 140 Ga. 178 (78 S. E. 803); Neil v. Dow Law Bank, 138 Ga. 158 (74 S. E. 1027).

3. Where a general demurrer to a petition was based on the grounds that the petition did not state a cause of action, and that the allegations thereof were too vague and uncertain, and no other ground, and where the judge entered thereon an order “that the within and foregoing general demurrer be sustained upon the ground there is a misjoinder of causes of actions, and if the plaintiff is entitled to recover, it is for a breach of contract,” this judgment was erroneous, because the general demurrer did not raise any question as to misjoinder of causes of action, and could not properly have raised such question.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hutcheson, Justice.

1. “The Supreme Court or tlie Court of Appeals shall not decide any question unless it is made by a specific assignment of error in the bill of exceptions, and shall decide any question . made by such assignment.” Code of 1933, § 6-1607.

2. Misjoinder of causes of action must be taken advantage of by special demurrer, and is not ground for general demurrer. Ga. R. Co. v. Tice, 124 Ga. 459 (52 S. E. 916, 4 Ann. Cas. 200); Riley v. Royal Arcanum, 140 Ga. 178 (78 S. E. 803); Neil v. Dow Law Bank, 138 Ga. 158 (74 S. E. 1027).

3. Where a general demurrer to a petition was based on the grounds that the petition did not state a cause of action, and that the allegations thereof were too vague and uncertain, and no other ground, and where the judge entered thereon an order “that the within and foregoing general demurrer be sustained upon the ground there is a misjoinder of causes of actions, and if the plaintiff is entitled to recover, it is for a breach of contract,” this judgment was erroneous, because the general demurrer did not raise any question as to misjoinder of causes of action, and could not properly have raised such question.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.E. 898, 181 Ga. 502, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullough-v-atlantic-refining-co-ga-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack