Wooley & Co. v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wooley & Co. v. City of Atlanta

142 S.E. 573, 38 Ga. App. 15, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 5

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 7, 1928

Docket18581

StatusPublished

This text of 142 S.E. 573 (Wooley & Co. v. City of Atlanta) 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

Wooley & Co. v. City of Atlanta, 142 S.E. 573, 38 Ga. App. 15, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 5 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

A. C. Wooley & Company brought suit against the City of Atlanta for $2500 damages for interference with the right of ingress and egress, by reason of filling and grading the public street in front of leased premises, occupied for business purposes, alleging, among other things, that “petitioner’s leasehold interest was greatly lessened and damaged and has depreciated in value.” Upon the authority of Pause v. Atlanta, 98 Ga. 92 (26 S. E. 489, 58 Am. St. R. 290), and of Bass v. West, 110 Ga. 698 (36 S. E. 244), the allegations of the petition were sufficient to stand the test of the [17]*17general demurrer, and the judgment sustaining the demurrer was error. See also 13 R. C. L. 142.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Bloodworih, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Luke, J.

A. C. Wooley & Company brought suit against the City of Atlanta for $2500 damages for interference with the right of ingress and egress, by reason of filling and grading the public street in front of leased premises, occupied for business purposes, alleging, among other things, that “petitioner’s leasehold interest was greatly lessened and damaged and has depreciated in value.” Upon the authority of Pause v. Atlanta, 98 Ga. 92 (26 S. E. 489, 58 Am. St. R. 290), and of Bass v. West, 110 Ga. 698 (36 S. E. 244), the allegations of the petition were sufficient to stand the test of the [17]*17general demurrer, and the judgment sustaining the demurrer was error. See also 13 R. C. L. 142.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Bloodworih, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 S.E. 573, 38 Ga. App. 15, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wooley-co-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack