Savannah Electric Co. v. Ellington

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Savannah Electric Co. v. Ellington

89 S.E. 301, 18 Ga. App. 257, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 264

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 23, 1916

Docket6692

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.E. 301 (Savannah Electric Co. v. Ellington) 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

Savannah Electric Co. v. Ellington, 89 S.E. 301, 18 Ga. App. 257, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 264 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

The release from damages for personal injuries, referred to in the plaintiff’s petition, does not appear in the record; and, since the consideration moving the plaintiff to execute the release is alleged by him to be other than and distinct from certain wages paid him for lost time, this court can not say that the return of the amount so paid as wages was an essential prerequisite to the bringing of the action. What the terms of the release itself may disclose remains to be developed on the trial. In the state of the record the trial judge did not err in overruling the demurrer, based on the grounds that the petition set forth no cause of action, and that it showed that if the plaintiff had any cause of action he had released and discharged the defendant therefrom. Judgment affirmed.

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

Wade, C. J.

The release from damages for personal injuries, referred to in the plaintiff’s petition, does not appear in the record; and, since the consideration moving the plaintiff to execute the release is alleged by him to be other than and distinct from certain wages paid him for lost time, this court can not say that the return of the amount so paid as wages was an essential prerequisite to the bringing of the action. What the terms of the release itself may disclose remains to be developed on the trial. In the state of the record the trial judge did not err in overruling the demurrer, based on the grounds that the petition set forth no cause of action, and that it showed that if the plaintiff had any cause of action he had released and discharged the defendant therefrom. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 301, 18 Ga. App. 257, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savannah-electric-co-v-ellington-gactapp-1916.