Patterson v. Barron

Supreme Court of Georgia

Patterson v. Barron

169 S.E. 899, 177 Ga. 159, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 136

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 13, 1933

DocketNo. 9418

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 169 S.E. 899 (Patterson v. Barron) 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

Patterson v. Barron, 169 S.E. 899, 177 Ga. 159, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 136 (Ga. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Beuq, J.

1. In a suit to enjoin the eviction of the plaintiff under a dispossessory warrant, where the petition not only shows that the plaintiff is not a tenant as claimed in the dispossessory warrant, but alleges facts from which it appears that the plaintiff, as against the defendant, is the equitable owner of an undivided interest in the property, and contains prayers appropriate to the protection of such interest by a court of equity, the petition is not subject to demurrer upon the ground that it fails to state a cause of action, or upon the ground that the plaintiff has a complete and adequate remedy at law. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3739 (1), 4634; Smith v. Wynn, 111 Ga. 884 (36 S. E. 970); Pope v. Thompson, 157 Ga. 891 (122 S. E. 604) ; Harvey v. Atlanta & Lowry National Bank, 164 Ga. 625 (2) (139 S. E. 147) ; Sims v. Etheridge, 169 Ga. 400 (2) (150 S. E. 647).

2. Under the facts of this case, the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition. See, in this connection, Carmichael v. Citizens & Southern Bank, 162 Ga. 735 (134 S. E. 771) ; First National Bank v. Pounds, 163 Ga. 551 (136 S. E. 528); Booth v. Young, 149 Ga. 276 (99 S. E. 886) ; McDonald v. Dabney, 161 Ga. 711 (8) (132 S. E. 547). Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beuq, J.

1. In a suit to enjoin the eviction of the plaintiff under a dispossessory warrant, where the petition not only shows that the plaintiff is not a tenant as claimed in the dispossessory warrant, but alleges facts from which it appears that the plaintiff, as against the defendant, is the equitable owner of an undivided interest in the property, and contains prayers appropriate to the protection of such interest by a court of equity, the petition is not subject to demurrer upon the ground that it fails to state a cause of action, or upon the ground that the plaintiff has a complete and adequate remedy at law. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3739 (1), 4634; Smith v. Wynn, 111 Ga. 884 (36 S. E. 970); Pope v. Thompson, 157 Ga. 891 (122 S. E. 604) ; Harvey v. Atlanta & Lowry National Bank, 164 Ga. 625 (2) (139 S. E. 147) ; Sims v. Etheridge, 169 Ga. 400 (2) (150 S. E. 647).

2. Under the facts of this case, the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition. See, in this connection, Carmichael v. Citizens & Southern Bank, 162 Ga. 735 (134 S. E. 771) ; First National Bank v. Pounds, 163 Ga. 551 (136 S. E. 528); Booth v. Young, 149 Ga. 276 (99 S. E. 886) ; McDonald v. Dabney, 161 Ga. 711 (8) (132 S. E. 547). Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.E. 899, 177 Ga. 159, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-barron-ga-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack