Moss & Co. v. Fortson

27 S.E. 745, 99 Ga. 496
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 18, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

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

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

Two causes of action were stated in the declaration before the ninth paragraph was stricken by amendment. That [499]*499paragraph 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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 S.E. 745, 99 Ga. 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moss-co-v-fortson-ga-1896.