Shirley v. Standard Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Shirley v. Standard Oil Co.

157 S.E. 267, 172 Ga. 191, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 53

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 13, 1931·No. No. 7635·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. The petition alleged that the defendant had actual notice of the general scheme of development of Rich’s subdivision in the City of Bainbridge and of the restrictions imposed on the lots in said subdivision. The allegation as to actual notice was an allegation of fact, and not of a mere conclusion of the pleader.

2. The petition set forth a cause of action, as against a general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., who dissents, and Beck, P. J., absent for providential cause. J. B. Bower Jr., for plaintiffs. B. G. Hartsfieldj for defendant.

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

Per Curiam.

1. The petition alleged that the defendant had actual notice of the general scheme of development of Rich’s subdivision in the City of Bainbridge and of the restrictions imposed on the lots in said subdivision. The allegation as to actual notice was an allegation of fact, and not of a mere conclusion of the pleader.

2. The petition set forth a cause of action, as against a general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., who dissents, and Beck, P. J., absent for providential cause. J. B. Bower Jr., for plaintiffs. B. G. Hartsfieldj for defendant.

Shirley v. Standard Oil Co., 157 S.E. 267, 172 Ga. 191, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 53 (Ga. 1931).

Pincite

157 S.E. 267 (Shirley v. Standard Oil Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related