Moore v. Ball
This text of 189 S.E. 227 (Moore v. Ball) 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.
Opinion
1. Tlie facts alleged in paragraph 2 of the proffered amendment are insufficient to allege an equitable estoppel against the defendant, W. L. Ball, from setting up a bar under the statute of limitations as against the plaintiff’s right of cancellation of the deeds in question.
2. The remaining allegations in the amendment are merely elaborative of allegations that were made in the original petition as it appeared when it was before this court, and to which the rulings related, in Ball v. Moore, 181 Ga. 146 (182 S. E. 128). The decision then rendered is conclusive on the same questions presented in a more elaborate form by the amendment.
3. The judge did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the amendment. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
189 S.E. 227, 183 Ga. 624, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-ball-ga-1936.