Swift Creek Distilling Co. v. Laval

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Swift Creek Distilling Co. v. Laval

67 S.E. 834, 7 Ga. App. 645, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 442

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 19, 1910

Docket2225

StatusPublished

This text of 67 S.E. 834 (Swift Creek Distilling Co. v. Laval) 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

Swift Creek Distilling Co. v. Laval, 67 S.E. 834, 7 Ga. App. 645, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. The suit was based on an express contract, and was to recover the value of services rendered thereon. The allegations of the petition were not indefinite, vague, or uncertain, but plainly and fully set forth a cause of action, and none of the grounds of demurrer contain any merit.

2. ,N° error of law appears; the court fully, fairly and correctly submitted the law applicable to the issues, and there is some evidence to support the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. The suit was based on an express contract, and was to recover the value of services rendered thereon. The allegations of the petition were not indefinite, vague, or uncertain, but plainly and fully set forth a cause of action, and none of the grounds of demurrer contain any merit.

2. ,N° error of law appears; the court fully, fairly and correctly submitted the law applicable to the issues, and there is some evidence to support the verdict. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.E. 834, 7 Ga. App. 645, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swift-creek-distilling-co-v-laval-gactapp-1910.