Teal v. Equitable Loan Co.

159 S.E. 904, 43 Ga. App. 673, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 505
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 14, 1931·No. 20991·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinions

Broyles, 0. J.

1. The general demurrer and paragraphs 3 and 4 of the special demurrer to the petition were properly overruled.

2. Paragraph 2 of the special demurrer to the petition should have been sustained, but, under all the facts of the case, the error in overruling it was harmless and does not require a reversal of the judgment. .

3. The special assignments of error in the petition for certiorari are. without merit; the verdict was authorized by the evidence; and the overruling of the certiorari was not error.

Judgment affirmed,.

Luke, J., coneurs. Bloodicorth, J., absent on aeeount of illness. F. F. Goodrum, for plaintiff in error. Martin, Martin, Snow & Gillen, contra.

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

Teal v. Equitable Loan Co., 159 S.E. 904, 43 Ga. App. 673, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 505 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

159 S.E. 904 (Teal v. Equitable Loan Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McLendon v. McLendon
96 Ga. App. 197 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Osley v. Abernathy
84 S.E.2d 113 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Frank Graham Co. v. Graham
84 S.E.2d 579 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Crews v. Roberson
10 S.E.2d 114 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)