Zorn v. Hannah & Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Zorn v. Hannah & Co.

25 S.E. 829, 99 Ga. 634

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 2, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 25 S.E. 829 (Zorn v. Hannah & Co.) 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

Zorn v. Hannah & Co., 25 S.E. 829, 99 Ga. 634 (Ga. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

The declaration, with or without the amendment, set forth a cause of action, and it was therefore error to dismiss the action on general demurrer. Judgment reversed.

Defendants demurred upon the ground, that plaintiff’s cause of action, if any exists, is not sufficiently, plainly and distinctly set forth; and that the allegations are too general and not distinctly alleged. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff excepted.

R. V. Hardeman & Son and Worrill & Lester, for plaintiff. M. H. Stmdioich and J. Y. Allen, for defendants.

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

Lumpkin, J.

The declaration, with or without the amendment, set forth a cause of action, and it was therefore error to dismiss the action on general demurrer. Judgment reversed.

Defendants demurred upon the ground, that plaintiff’s cause of action, if any exists, is not sufficiently, plainly and distinctly set forth; and that the allegations are too general and not distinctly alleged. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff excepted.

R. V. Hardeman & Son and Worrill & Lester, for plaintiff. M. H. Stmdioich and J. Y. Allen, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 S.E. 829, 99 Ga. 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zorn-v-hannah-co-ga-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack