Roles v. Edwards

176 S.E. 106, 49 Ga. App. 527, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 465
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 19, 1934
Docket23362
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 176 S.E. 106 (Roles v. Edwards) 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
Roles v. Edwards, 176 S.E. 106, 49 Ga. App. 527, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 465 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Opinion

Sutton, J.

1. A judgment on demurrer until reversed concludes the parties upon all questions necessarily involved in the decision of the points raised in the demurrer. Gibson v. Mason, 31 Ga. App. 584 (2) (121 S. E. 584). A judgment overruling a general demurrer to a petition, unless excepted to and reversed, is an adjudication that the petition sets forth a cause of action. Turner v. Willingham, 148 Ga. 274 (2) (96 [528]*528S. E. 565). It matters not, therefore, -whether the ruling on the demurrer was right or wrong; it became the law of the ease and is conclusive upon the parties thereto. By not excepting to the ruling on the demurrer, the defendant went to trial faced with an estoppel. Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Western Union Tel. Co., 123 Ga. 216, 221 (51 S. E. 290); Grantham v. Fleming, 13 Ga. App. 184, 186 (78 S. E. 1113).

Decided September 19, 1934.

2. The contract attached to the petition, and for a breach of which the action was brought, was a part of the petition. Augusta & Savannah R. Co. v. Lark, 97 Ga. 800 (25 S. E. 175). The ruling on the general demurrer, that the petition set forth a cause of action, not being excepted to, became the law of the case, that the petition and contract set forth a cause of action against the defendant. The court therefore did not err in admitting the contract in evidence, over the objection of the defendant that the description therein of the loan to be assumed was insufficient and indefinite and did not comply with the statute of frauds; nor were the verdict and judgment contrary to law and unsupported by evidence because the contract was void and unenforceable by reason of the uncertainty and indefiniteness of the description therein of the loan to be assumed. Quarterman v. Godwin, 34 Ga. App. 201 (2).

3. It follows that the court did not err in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkms, P. J., cund Stephens, J., concw. William S. Shelfer, for plaintiff in error. Douglas M. Orr, Jones, Fuller, Bussell & Glapp, J. D. McLamb, contra.

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

Related

Floyd v. Stevens-Davenport Funeral Home
138 S.E.2d 333 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. Tyler
122 S.E.2d 591 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
McKool v. Naddra
110 S.E.2d 409 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Harris v. McDaniel
88 S.E.2d 442 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Cloud v. Stewart
88 S.E.2d 323 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Eubanks v. Taylor
39 S.E.2d 449 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1946)
Carter v. Mansor
33 S.E.2d 718 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
Lunsford v. Howe
30 S.E.2d 207 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Green v. Spires
7 S.E.2d 246 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Tingle v. Maddox
198 S.E. 722 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 S.E. 106, 49 Ga. App. 527, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roles-v-edwards-gactapp-1934.