Scott v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

88 S.E. 995, 18 Ga. App. 159, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 193
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 24, 1916
Docket6981
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 995 (Scott v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.) 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
Scott v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 88 S.E. 995, 18 Ga. App. 159, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 193 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Bboyles, J.

(o) With the addition of the disallowed amendment, the petition set forth a cause of action, and was riot subject to general demurrer.

(Z>) The special demurrers should not have been sustained, as they did not specify or point out the alleged defects in the petition. A special demurrer goes to the structure merely, and it must distinctly and particularly specify wherein the defect lies. The party specially demurring-“must lay, as it were, his finger on the very point,” otherwise his demurrer will be overruled. Martin v. Bartow Iron Works, 35 Ga. 319, 323. Judgment reversed.

The amendment which the court refused to allow was as follows: “1. Plaintiff is the widowed mother of said deceased and at the time of said homicide was in ill health and unable to labor or earn a living, she was possessed of no property, and was entirely dependent upon the labor of said deceased for her support and maintenance. 2. Said defendant wilfully and wantonly ran its train over and killed said deceased after they knew he was upon their tracks.” The defendant demurred to the petition generally, and to specified parts, which it moved to strike, without stating why it demurred to these parts. Frank G. Babb, for plaintiff. Saffold & Jordan, Dixon & Dixon, for defendant.

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

Related

Mull v. Emory University, Inc.
150 S.E.2d 276 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Bartow County v. Darnell
97 S.E.2d 610 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Beck & Gregg Hardware Co. v. Associated Transport, Inc.
81 S.E.2d 515 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1954)
Hoffman v. Louis L. Battey Post
39 S.E.2d 889 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1946)
Katz v. Turner
174 S.E. 167 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Darien Bank v. Clifton
118 S.E. 641 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Coffee v. South Georgia Farmers Fire Insurance
116 S.E. 653 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 S.E. 995, 18 Ga. App. 159, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-central-of-georgia-railway-co-gactapp-1916.