Ozburn v. Dunlap Milling Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Ozburn v. Dunlap Milling Co.

116 S.E. 538, 155 Ga. 336, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 62

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 15, 1923

DocketNo. 3306

StatusPublished

This text of 116 S.E. 538 (Ozburn v. Dunlap Milling Co.) 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

Ozburn v. Dunlap Milling Co., 116 S.E. 538, 155 Ga. 336, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 62 (Ga. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition for want of equity. The petition shows that if the defendant was entitled to recover he had an adequate remedy at law. Whether or not the petitioner was entitled to recover by-reason of the facts alleged it is not necessary to decide. If, however, such facts were sufficient to entitle him to a recovery, such recovery could not be based upon the theory of a tort, but, under the allegations,' would arise out of the guaranty in the contract of storage; and such set-off could be pleaded in the city court of Atlanta.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. W. J. Davis, Jr., G. H. Calhoun, and W. B. Cody, for plaintiff. Smith, Hammond & Smith, for defendant.

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

Gilbert, J.

The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition for want of equity. The petition shows that if the defendant was entitled to recover he had an adequate remedy at law. Whether or not the petitioner was entitled to recover by-reason of the facts alleged it is not necessary to decide. If, however, such facts were sufficient to entitle him to a recovery, such recovery could not be based upon the theory of a tort, but, under the allegations,' would arise out of the guaranty in the contract of storage; and such set-off could be pleaded in the city court of Atlanta.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. W. J. Davis, Jr., G. H. Calhoun, and W. B. Cody, for plaintiff. Smith, Hammond & Smith, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E. 538, 155 Ga. 336, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ozburn-v-dunlap-milling-co-ga-1923.