Padgett v. Reaves

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Padgett v. Reaves

70 S.E.2d 922, 86 Ga. App. 137, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 897

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 9, 1952

Docket33977

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 70 S.E.2d 922 (Padgett v. Reaves) 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

Padgett v. Reaves, 70 S.E.2d 922, 86 Ga. App. 137, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 897 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Worrill, J.

1. The general grounds are not argued or insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the defendant, and are treated as abandoned. Clay v. State, 83 Ga. App. 719, 720 (64 S. E. 2d, 898).

2. Since rulings on the pleadings can not be excepted to in a motion for a new trial (Fechtel v. Chastain, 79 Ga. App. 517, 518, 54 S. E. 2d, 459), the questions of whether or not the court erred in refusing to grant the defendant’s oral motion to dismiss, 'and in overruling the plea of the statute of frauds, are not properly presented to this court and will not be considered.

3. The judgment overruling the defendant’s demurrer was properly excepted to and the exception preserved for consideration by this court, but the only argument in support of the demurrer in the brief of counsel is based on the statute of frauds; and, since there was no reference whatever to this statute in the demurrer, no question as to its applicability is presented by the present record. Pope v. Lovett, 188 Ga. 524, 526 (4 S. E. 2d, 152); Lawson v. Haygood, 202 Ga. 501, 503 (43 S. E. 2d, 649).

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Worrill, J.

1. The general grounds are not argued or insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the defendant, and are treated as abandoned. Clay v. State, 83 Ga. App. 719, 720 (64 S. E. 2d, 898).

2. Since rulings on the pleadings can not be excepted to in a motion for a new trial (Fechtel v. Chastain, 79 Ga. App. 517, 518, 54 S. E. 2d, 459), the questions of whether or not the court erred in refusing to grant the defendant’s oral motion to dismiss, 'and in overruling the plea of the statute of frauds, are not properly presented to this court and will not be considered.

3. The judgment overruling the defendant’s demurrer was properly excepted to and the exception preserved for consideration by this court, but the only argument in support of the demurrer in the brief of counsel is based on the statute of frauds; and, since there was no reference whatever to this statute in the demurrer, no question as to its applicability is presented by the present record. Pope v. Lovett, 188 Ga. 524, 526 (4 S. E. 2d, 152); Lawson v. Haygood, 202 Ga. 501, 503 (43 S. E. 2d, 649).

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E.2d 922, 86 Ga. App. 137, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padgett-v-reaves-gactapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack