Redwine v. Carr & Co.

139 S.E. 1, 164 Ga. 592, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 233

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 30, 1927·No. Nos. 5729, 5731·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. The petition set out a cause of action, and the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer. Kirkpatrick v. Holland, 148 Ga. 708.

2. It does not appear from the face of the petition that the plaintiff was . . guilty of such laches as that he was barred of recovery.

Judgment reversed on the main bill of exceptions, and affirmed on the cross-bill.

Injunctions, 32 C. J. p. 70, n. 47; p. 87, n. 7; p. 319, n. 31; p. 341, n. 3.

All the Justices concur. Hewlett & Dennis and E. W. Fountain, for plaintiff. Underwood & Haas and E. 8myth Gambrell, for defendants.

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

Hill, J.

1. The petition set out a cause of action, and the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer. Kirkpatrick v. Holland, 148 Ga. 708.

2. It does not appear from the face of the petition that the plaintiff was . . guilty of such laches as that he was barred of recovery.

Judgment reversed on the main bill of exceptions, and affirmed on the cross-bill.

Injunctions, 32 C. J. p. 70, n. 47; p. 87, n. 7; p. 319, n. 31; p. 341, n. 3.

All the Justices concur. Hewlett & Dennis and E. W. Fountain, for plaintiff. Underwood & Haas and E. 8myth Gambrell, for defendants.

Redwine v. Carr & Co., 139 S.E. 1, 164 Ga. 592, 1927 Ga. LEXIS 233 (Ga. 1927).

Pincite

139 S.E. 1 (Redwine v. Carr & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.