McKool v. Naddra

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McKool v. Naddra

110 S.E.2d 409, 100 Ga. App. 171, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 560

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 14, 1959

Docket37752

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 110 S.E.2d 409 (McKool v. Naddra) 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

McKool v. Naddra, 110 S.E.2d 409, 100 Ga. App. 171, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 560 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Judge.

On January 26,1959, Nadra Naddra sued Dave McKool in the Civil Court of Fulton County to recover $1,437.50 plus interest at the rate of seven percent per annum from September, 1955; said action being for money had and received. The defendant filed general and special demurrers which were overruled. The defendant did not except to said ruling. When the cause came on to be heard before the judge, sitting without a jury, the defendant made an oral motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to allege “what it was for,—what liabilities were incurred.” The court denied this motion. At the conclusion of the evidence the court entered judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for. The defendant made a motion for new trial on the general grounds which he later amended to include 3 special grounds. The court denied the motion, and to this ruling the defendant excepts. Held:

1. The fact that the defendant failed to except to the ruling [172]*172overruling his general demurrer, established the law of this case that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, if he proved his case as alleged. Cloud v. Stewart, 92 Ga. App. 247, 249 (88 S. E. 2d 323); Roles v. Edwards, 49 Ga. App. 527 (176 S. E. 106) and cases cited.

Decided September 14, 1959. E. B. Shaw, for plaintiff in error. Joseph S. Crespi, Crespi ,<& Milam, contra.

2. The special grounds are merely a restatement or elaboration of the general grounds and therefore will not be considered .separately. The plaintiff alleged in his petition, as amended, that he purchased the cashier’s check for $1,437.50; that he gave it to the defendant and for it he has received nothing of value; that he has made-demand but the defendant fails and refuses to repay it. He introduced evidence in support of these allegations and although the evidence was somewhat in conflict, nevertheless it was sufficient to authorize a finding that the plaintiff had proved his case as alleged. Accordingly the court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Nichols, Judge.

On January 26,1959, Nadra Naddra sued Dave McKool in the Civil Court of Fulton County to recover $1,437.50 plus interest at the rate of seven percent per annum from September, 1955; said action being for money had and received. The defendant filed general and special demurrers which were overruled. The defendant did not except to said ruling. When the cause came on to be heard before the judge, sitting without a jury, the defendant made an oral motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to allege “what it was for,—what liabilities were incurred.” The court denied this motion. At the conclusion of the evidence the court entered judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for. The defendant made a motion for new trial on the general grounds which he later amended to include 3 special grounds. The court denied the motion, and to this ruling the defendant excepts. Held:

1. The fact that the defendant failed to except to the ruling [172]*172overruling his general demurrer, established the law of this case that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, if he proved his case as alleged. Cloud v. Stewart, 92 Ga. App. 247, 249 (88 S. E. 2d 323); Roles v. Edwards, 49 Ga. App. 527 (176 S. E. 106) and cases cited.

Decided September 14, 1959. E. B. Shaw, for plaintiff in error. Joseph S. Crespi, Crespi ,<& Milam, contra.

2. The special grounds are merely a restatement or elaboration of the general grounds and therefore will not be considered .separately. The plaintiff alleged in his petition, as amended, that he purchased the cashier’s check for $1,437.50; that he gave it to the defendant and for it he has received nothing of value; that he has made-demand but the defendant fails and refuses to repay it. He introduced evidence in support of these allegations and although the evidence was somewhat in conflict, nevertheless it was sufficient to authorize a finding that the plaintiff had proved his case as alleged. Accordingly the court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E.2d 409, 100 Ga. App. 171, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckool-v-naddra-gactapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack