Solomon v. Bateman-Freeman Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Solomon v. Bateman-Freeman Co.

161 S.E. 357, 173 Ga. 776, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 399

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 12, 1931

DocketNo. 8440

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 S.E. 357 (Solomon v. Bateman-Freeman Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Solomon v. Bateman-Freeman Co., 161 S.E. 357, 173 Ga. 776, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 399 (Ga. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Hines, J.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court. 171 Ga. 266. Solomon and the sheriff of Bibb County, the defendants, demurred to the petition on the ground that it set forth no case. The trial court overruled the demurrer, and the defendants excepted. This court affirmed that judgment. The right of the plaintiff to recover upon proof of the allegations of the petition was adjudicated favorably to it by the judgment overruling the demurrer and the judgment of this court affirming the judgment of the trial court; and when the plaintiff introduced evidence substantially proving the case as laid in the petition, and' not negativing in any way the right to recover, and where the defendant offered no evidence, the judge did not err in directing a verdict and [777]*777in entering thereon judgment for the plaintiff. Sims v. Ga. Ry. & El. Co., 123 Ga. 643 (51 S. E. 573); Brooks v. Rawlings, 138 Ga. 310 (75 S. E. 157); Bailey v. Georgia & Florida Ry., 144 Ga. 139 (2) (86 S. E. 326); Hixon v. Hinkle, 156 Ga. 341 (118 S. E. 874). Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hines, J.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court. 171 Ga. 266. Solomon and the sheriff of Bibb County, the defendants, demurred to the petition on the ground that it set forth no case. The trial court overruled the demurrer, and the defendants excepted. This court affirmed that judgment. The right of the plaintiff to recover upon proof of the allegations of the petition was adjudicated favorably to it by the judgment overruling the demurrer and the judgment of this court affirming the judgment of the trial court; and when the plaintiff introduced evidence substantially proving the case as laid in the petition, and' not negativing in any way the right to recover, and where the defendant offered no evidence, the judge did not err in directing a verdict and [777]*777in entering thereon judgment for the plaintiff. Sims v. Ga. Ry. & El. Co., 123 Ga. 643 (51 S. E. 573); Brooks v. Rawlings, 138 Ga. 310 (75 S. E. 157); Bailey v. Georgia & Florida Ry., 144 Ga. 139 (2) (86 S. E. 326); Hixon v. Hinkle, 156 Ga. 341 (118 S. E. 874). Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E. 357, 173 Ga. 776, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solomon-v-bateman-freeman-co-ga-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack