Moss & Co. v. Fortson

27 S.E. 745, 99 Ga. 496
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 18, 1896·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

Two causes of action were stated in the declaration before the ninth paragraph was stricken by amendment. That [499] paragraph declared upon an assumpsit. By it the plaintiff undertook to recover a sum certain alleged to be actually due for sendees performed -at the request of the defendants. The major part of the declaration, however, is an action for damages alleged to have resulted to the plaintiff in consequence of a non-performance upon the part of the defendants of certain duties assumed by them in the execution of the agreement stated in the declaration. The declaration alleged the contract; alleged a duty to be owing from the defendants to the plaintiff; alleged the breach of the contract, and the resulting breach of this duty; and alleged general damages flowing to the plaintiff from such breach. It therefore contained a statement of a cause of action. If the elements of damage were not alleged in such manner as to enable the defendants intelligently to plead, the remedy was by special demurrer; bu't there being a cause of action stated in the declaration, it is sufficient to support a verdict founded thereon, and will prevail against a motion in arrest of judgment. See Moss & Co. v. Stokeley, 95 Ga. 675. Judgment affirmed.

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

Moss & Co. v. Fortson, 27 S.E. 745, 99 Ga. 496 (Ga. 1896).

27 S.E. 745 (Moss & Co. v. Fortson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stowers v. Harris
22 S.E.2d 405 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Tice Co. v. Evans
123 S.E. 742 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Southern Railway Co. v. Bunch
102 S.E. 462 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Anderson v. Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co.
49 S.E. 725 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)