State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Davis

87 S.E.2d 348, 91 Ga. App. 850, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 885

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 18, 1955

Docket35583

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 S.E.2d 348 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Davis) 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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Davis, 87 S.E.2d 348, 91 Ga. App. 850, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 885 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, J.

While by the action the plaintiff seeks subrogation against thé defendant for reasons stated in the petition, it is not alleged that the collision referred to in the suit between the defendant here and E. L. Gammage involves the same collision which resulted in the plaintiff paying a claim to the defendant in the amount of $2,610. The petition, therefore, failed to set forth a cause of action for subrogation because it failed to show that the defendant here, after the plaintiff paid his claim, obtained a verdict and judgment against the same person who caused the collision on September 6, 1949. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer on this ground.

In view of the above ruling, the other ground of general demurrer need not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Nichols, J.

While by the action the plaintiff seeks subrogation against thé defendant for reasons stated in the petition, it is not alleged that the collision referred to in the suit between the defendant here and E. L. Gammage involves the same collision which resulted in the plaintiff paying a claim to the defendant in the amount of $2,610. The petition, therefore, failed to set forth a cause of action for subrogation because it failed to show that the defendant here, after the plaintiff paid his claim, obtained a verdict and judgment against the same person who caused the collision on September 6, 1949. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer on this ground.

In view of the above ruling, the other ground of general demurrer need not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E.2d 348, 91 Ga. App. 850, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-v-davis-gactapp-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack