Smith v. Carter

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Smith v. Carter

93 S.E. 44, 20 Ga. App. 391, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 903

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 27, 1917

Docket8394

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 44 (Smith v. Carter) 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

Smith v. Carter, 93 S.E. 44, 20 Ga. App. 391, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 903 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, 0. J.

1. Aside from other questions, construing the suit brought in the justice’s court as contended for by the plaintiff and most favorably to him, it was an action by a member of an unincorporated fraternal association, to recover dues paid by him to his partners in the association in accordance with the rules of the partnership, because his membership therein had been terminated at their option and against his will. Generally, such a suit can not be maintained, except for an accounting in a court of equity. Bennett v. Woolfolk, 15 Ga. 213; Prentice v. Elliott, 72 Ga. 154; King v. Courson, 57 Ga. 11; Gilbert v. [392]*392Crystal Fountain Lodge, 80 Ga. 284 (4 S. E. 905, 12 Am. St. R. 255); Paulk v. Creech, 8 Ga. App. 738 (70 S. E. 145). In this suit nothing is alleged to take it out of the usual rule. See Miller v. Freeman, 111 Ga. 654 (36 S. E. 961, 51 L. R. A. 504).

Decided June 27, 1917.

Certiorari; from Muscogee superior court—Judge Munro. December 30, 1916.

Ed. Wohlwender, Paul Blanchard, for plaintiff.

2. The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the petition . for certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

George andLulce, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, 0. J.

1. Aside from other questions, construing the suit brought in the justice’s court as contended for by the plaintiff and most favorably to him, it was an action by a member of an unincorporated fraternal association, to recover dues paid by him to his partners in the association in accordance with the rules of the partnership, because his membership therein had been terminated at their option and against his will. Generally, such a suit can not be maintained, except for an accounting in a court of equity. Bennett v. Woolfolk, 15 Ga. 213; Prentice v. Elliott, 72 Ga. 154; King v. Courson, 57 Ga. 11; Gilbert v. [392]*392Crystal Fountain Lodge, 80 Ga. 284 (4 S. E. 905, 12 Am. St. R. 255); Paulk v. Creech, 8 Ga. App. 738 (70 S. E. 145). In this suit nothing is alleged to take it out of the usual rule. See Miller v. Freeman, 111 Ga. 654 (36 S. E. 961, 51 L. R. A. 504).

Decided June 27, 1917.

Certiorari; from Muscogee superior court—Judge Munro. December 30, 1916.

Ed. Wohlwender, Paul Blanchard, for plaintiff.

2. The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the petition . for certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

George andLulce, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 44, 20 Ga. App. 391, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-carter-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack