Stelling v. Richmond County
This text of 66 S.E.2d 807 (Stelling v. Richmond County) 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.
Opinion
1. Where the plaintiff’s cause of action is based upon a statutory provision, his evidence must show compliance with all the conditions precedent to his right to recover as set up by the statute relied on. Universal Credit Co. Inc. v. Citizens State Bank of Petersburg, 224 Ind. 1 (4) (64 N. E. 2d, 28, 168 A.L.R. 352).
2. This rule is not abrogated or its force impaired by the fact that the plaintiff’s petition alleging generally compliance with the statutory prerequisites has been held by this court to state a cause of action as against demurrers thereto filed by the defendant.
3. Consequently, where the plaintiff’s cause of action was dependent upon a certain act of the legislature (Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., pp. 875, 880, sec. 10) which required the plaintiff, among other things, to be a registered voter of Richmond County before he acquired any rights under such act, his failure to prove that he was a registered voter of Richmond County, or to introduce any evidence at all tending to show such fact, was fatal to a recovery.
4. The trial court, therefore, did not err in granting a first new trial on the ground that the plaintiff did not prove that he was a registered voter of Richmond County. Dorsey v. Georgia R. &c. Co., 82 Ga. App. 237 (2) (60 S. E. 2d, 828).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 S.E.2d 807, 84 Ga. App. 618, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stelling-v-richmond-county-gactapp-1951.