Nash v. Savannah Electric Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Nash v. Savannah Electric Co.

91 S.E. 240, 19 Ga. App. 175, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 48

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 23, 1917

Docket7539

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.E. 240 (Nash v. Savannah Electric Co.) 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

Nash v. Savannah Electric Co., 91 S.E. 240, 19 Ga. App. 175, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 48 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, ,P. J.

Under the particular facts of the case, the petition, construed (as it must be) most strongly against the plaintiff, did not set forth a cause of action, and the court committed no error in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the suit.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Oliver & Oliver, for plaintiff,

cited: Georgia Ry. &c. Co. v. McAllister, 126 Ga. 448; Georgia Ry. &c. Co. v. Norris, 135 Ga. 838, 843; Macon Ry. Co. v. Vining, 120 Ga. 511; G., C. & N. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 120 Ga. 381; Atlanta Terminal Co. v. Johnson, 15 Ga. App. 22; A. & B. Railroad Co. v. Douglas, 119 Ga. 658; Dorsey v. Central Ry. Co., 113 Ga. 565; King v. S. A. L. Ry., 1 Ga. App. 88; Ellison v. Ga. R. Co., 87 Ga. 692 (8); Central R. Co. v. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770; Wilkes v. W. & A. R. Co., 109 Ga. 794; Central R. Co. v. Gleason, 72 Ga. 742; Central R. Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461 (3).

Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams, for defendant, cited and distinguished cases cited above.

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

Broyles, ,P. J.

Under the particular facts of the case, the petition, construed (as it must be) most strongly against the plaintiff, did not set forth a cause of action, and the court committed no error in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the suit.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Oliver & Oliver, for plaintiff,

cited: Georgia Ry. &c. Co. v. McAllister, 126 Ga. 448; Georgia Ry. &c. Co. v. Norris, 135 Ga. 838, 843; Macon Ry. Co. v. Vining, 120 Ga. 511; G., C. & N. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 120 Ga. 381; Atlanta Terminal Co. v. Johnson, 15 Ga. App. 22; A. & B. Railroad Co. v. Douglas, 119 Ga. 658; Dorsey v. Central Ry. Co., 113 Ga. 565; King v. S. A. L. Ry., 1 Ga. App. 88; Ellison v. Ga. R. Co., 87 Ga. 692 (8); Central R. Co. v. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770; Wilkes v. W. & A. R. Co., 109 Ga. 794; Central R. Co. v. Gleason, 72 Ga. 742; Central R. Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461 (3).

Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams, for defendant, cited and distinguished cases cited above.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 240, 19 Ga. App. 175, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nash-v-savannah-electric-co-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack