Whiddon v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Whiddon v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

135 S.E.2d 521, 109 Ga. App. 137, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 815

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 13, 1964

Docket40564

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 135 S.E.2d 521 (Whiddon v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY) 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

Whiddon v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 135 S.E.2d 521, 109 Ga. App. 137, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 815 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Jordan, Judge.

This case is controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia in Bullard v. Life &c. Ins. Co., 178 Ga. 673, 674 (173 SE 855), in which Justice Gilbert said: “In arriving at the true interpretation of a contract, words usually bear their ‘usual and common signification.’ In common parlance, or according to usual signification of the word, an ‘automobile’ is not a ‘motorcycle.’ Both are ‘motor-driven’ vehicles, but not all ‘motor-driven’ vehicles are ‘automobiles’ nor are all ‘motorcycles.’ Had it been the intention of the parties that the insurance should cover accidents in riding a motorcycle, the policy would properly have used the words ‘motor-driven vehicles.’ ”

Any language used by this court in Carter v. State, 12 Ga. App. 430 (78 SE 205) and Bonds v. State, 16 Ga. App. 401 (85 SE 629), relied upon by plaintiff in error, in conflict with the above must yield to the clear cut subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court in Bullard, 178 Ga. 673, supra.

The trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

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

Jordan, Judge.

This case is controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia in Bullard v. Life &c. Ins. Co., 178 Ga. 673, 674 (173 SE 855), in which Justice Gilbert said: “In arriving at the true interpretation of a contract, words usually bear their ‘usual and common signification.’ In common parlance, or according to usual signification of the word, an ‘automobile’ is not a ‘motorcycle.’ Both are ‘motor-driven’ vehicles, but not all ‘motor-driven’ vehicles are ‘automobiles’ nor are all ‘motorcycles.’ Had it been the intention of the parties that the insurance should cover accidents in riding a motorcycle, the policy would properly have used the words ‘motor-driven vehicles.’ ”

Any language used by this court in Carter v. State, 12 Ga. App. 430 (78 SE 205) and Bonds v. State, 16 Ga. App. 401 (85 SE 629), relied upon by plaintiff in error, in conflict with the above must yield to the clear cut subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court in Bullard, 178 Ga. 673, supra.

The trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E.2d 521, 109 Ga. App. 137, 1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whiddon-v-cotton-states-mutual-insurance-company-gactapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack