Court Opinion

ID: 9613394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:16:40.79173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:28.633850
License: Public Domain

Felton, J.,
dissenting. The general demurrer should have been sustained. As against a demurrer the pleadings must be construed against the pleader and no inference can be drawn favorable to the pleader unless the facts alleged demand the inference. The allegation that at the time neither the plaintiffs nor their attorney had knowledge of the fact that S. A. Kellett and Jack A. Patton were doing business together as real-estate agents and brokers and were in fact partners in the real-estate business is not an allegation that they were in such business together at a particular time. The allegation is consistent with the fact that they were not in such a business at the time alleged. It was not elsewhere alleged that the partnership of Kellett and Patton was engaged in the real-estate business. Furthermore, it was not alleged that Jack A. Patton acted as a member of the partnership or as agent of Kellett in selling the property or that Kellett acted as a member of the partnership in buying it or as agent for Patton. There is no allegation of conspiracy or collusion between Patton and Kellett and no allegation that Patton knew that he could obtain more for the property than was offered by Kellett at the time the contract to sell was signed by Kellett. In order to hold the petition in this case good as against general demurrer, we would have to add by inference the facts above stated, or some of them, which *697under the rules of law we have no power or authority to do. See Davis v. Arthur, 139 Ga. 74 (4) (76 S. E. 676); Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Tapley, 145 Ga. 792 (89 S. E. 841); Code (Ann.), § 81-101 and Pocket Part, catchwords “Ambiguous pleadings.”