Case ID: ga-app_25/html/0161-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11301.
    GROSSMAN v. CITY OF ATLANTA.
    Decided April 8, 1920.
    The order sustaining the demurrer to the petition and allowing a stated time in which to amend it, to which no exception was taken, fixed the law of the case; and the plaintiff’s amendment having failed to meet the objections raised by the demurrer, the court did not err in dismissing the petition, on oral motion Of the defendant when the case came up for trial.
    Action for damages; from Fulton superior court — Judge Ellis. December 1, 1919.
    
      J. L. Anderson, for plaintiff.
    
      J. L. Mayson, J. M. Wood, for defendant.
   Smith, J.

The court overruled the general demurrer to the petition, but sustained all the grounds of the special demurrer, and allowed the plaintiff 20 days within which to amend his petition to meet these special grounds. The order provided that upon failure to meet the grounds of the special demurrer the ease should stand dismissed. To this ruling no exception was taken, nor is error assigned thereon in the bill of exceptions. Therefore the ruling that the petition was subject to the special demurrer_ became the law of the case. The plaintiff, within the 20 days allowed, filed a purported amendment to his petition. This amendment was in all substantial respects merely a reiteration of the various allegations contained in the original petition, and though it did set out somewhat more at length the contentions of the plaintiff, these contentions were substantially the same, and the amendment clearly failed to meet the objections raised by the special grounds of the demurrer. No further amendment was tendered within the 20 days allowed in the court’s order. IJnder these facts, when the case came up for trial before a jury, the court did not err in dismissing it upon oral motion made by the defendant. Hinson v. Mutual Fertilizer Co., 19 Ga. App. 121 (91 S. E. 241); Baker v. City of Atlanta, 22 Ga. App. 483 (96 S. E. 332).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.