Sutherland v. Terrell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sutherland v. Terrell

118 S.E. 69, 30 Ga. App. 134

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1923

Docket13772, 13773

StatusPublished

This text of 118 S.E. 69 (Sutherland v. Terrell) 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

Sutherland v. Terrell, 118 S.E. 69, 30 Ga. App. 134 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

In the cross-bill of exceptions in this case error is assigned on the overruling of the demurrer to the petition. The petition, properly construed, is a suit for damages for the breach of a parol contract for the sale of land, and, as there are no facts alleged which bring the case within any of the exceptions to the statute of frauds, the court erred in overruling the demurrer, which raised this issue.

This ruling is controlling on the case as a whole, and under it the judgment overruling the demurrer must be reversed; and we are not required to consider the main bill of exceptions.

Judgment on cross-bill of exceptions reversed; main bill of exceptions dismissed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur. W. B. & W. G. Mann, Lang & Lang, Morris & Hawlcins, for Sutherland et al. W. C. Martin, Maddox, McCamy & Shumate, Reuben R. & Lowry Arnold, contra.

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

Bloodworth, J.

In the cross-bill of exceptions in this case error is assigned on the overruling of the demurrer to the petition. The petition, properly construed, is a suit for damages for the breach of a parol contract for the sale of land, and, as there are no facts alleged which bring the case within any of the exceptions to the statute of frauds, the court erred in overruling the demurrer, which raised this issue.

This ruling is controlling on the case as a whole, and under it the judgment overruling the demurrer must be reversed; and we are not required to consider the main bill of exceptions.

Judgment on cross-bill of exceptions reversed; main bill of exceptions dismissed.

Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur. W. B. & W. G. Mann, Lang & Lang, Morris & Hawlcins, for Sutherland et al. W. C. Martin, Maddox, McCamy & Shumate, Reuben R. & Lowry Arnold, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.E. 69, 30 Ga. App. 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutherland-v-terrell-gactapp-1923.