Case ID: ga-app_61/html/0743-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Broyles, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

28035.
    Hughes v. Henderson.
    Decided February 22, 1940.
    
      Walter A. Sims, Ralph G. Sims, Henry M. Henderson, for plaintiif. ...
    
      Barrett & Nall, for defendant.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. The motion to dismiss the writ of error is denied.

2. “Where the court, on demurrer, holds that the transaction upon which a recovery is sought does not, as it is alleged'iri the petition, constitute a cause of action, and dismisses the suit on this ground, the judgment operates as, a res adjudicaba, and bars a subsequent suit between the parties on the same transaction, though in the.first case the facts were untruly or improperly stated, and if they had been truly and prroperly stated, a cause of action would have' been disclosed.” (Italics ours.) Wolfe v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co., 6 Ga. App. 410 (65 S. E. 62); Hoffman v. Summerford, 28 Ga. App. 247 (111 S. E. 68); DeLoach v. Georgia Coast & Piedmont R. Co., 144 Ga. 678 (87 S. E. 889); Sudderth v. Harris, 51 Ga. App. 654 (181 S. E. 122); Woods v. Travelers Insurance Co., 53 Ga. App. 429 (186 S. E. 467); Code, §§ 110-501, 110-504.

3. Applying’ the above-stated ruling to the -fact» of this ease, the 'court did not err in sustaining' the plea of res adjudicata and, dismissing the case.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., conmr.