Wilkinson v. Smith

176 S.E. 373, 179 Ga. 507, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 321
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 19, 1934
DocketNo. 9935
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 176 S.E. 373 (Wilkinson v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wilkinson v. Smith, 176 S.E. 373, 179 Ga. 507, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 321 (Ga. 1934).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. Objections to a petition on the grounds of multifariousness and misjoinder of parties go to the form and not to the substance of the petition, and therefore must be raised by special demurrer. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Tice, 124 Ga. 459 (52 S. E. 916, 4 Ann. Cas. 200).

[508]*508No. 9935. September 19, 1934. Grady Gillon, for plaintiff in error. Edward F. Taylor, contra.

2. In an equity suit a demurrer to the petition as amended contained general grounds that the allegations failed to allege a cause of action, etc., and special grounds of multifariousness and misjoinder of parties. In the bill of exceptions filed by the defendant the sole assignment of error is that “ after hearing arguments on the general demurrer the court overruled said demurrer, to which ruling defendant . . then and there excepted, and here and now excepts and assigns the same as error as being contrary to law, and says that the court erred in refusing to sustain said demurrer on the grounds set forth therein.” Held, that this assignment of error relates only to the grounds of general demurrer, and does not raise any question for decision on the subjects of multifariousness or misjoinder of parties.

3. In the brief of the attorney for the plaintiff in error there is no insistence upon the general grounds of demurrer, to which alone the above assignment of error relates; and consequently, under the uniform rulings of this court, that assignment of error will be treated as abandoned.

4. The brief of the attorney for the plaintiff in error discusses the questions of multifariousness and misjoinder of parties; but those questions were not raised by the assignment of error, and can not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Black v. Horowitz
46 S.E.2d 346 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Grant v. Hart
14 S.E.2d 860 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Ferrell v. Wight
200 S.E. 271 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Levitsky v. Turk
187 S.E. 107 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Green v. Lingo
181 S.E. 148 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 S.E. 373, 179 Ga. 507, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkinson-v-smith-ga-1934.