Court Opinion

ID: 5612601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 04:06:19.975832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:09.161143
License: Public Domain

Broyles, C. J.
Conceding, but not deciding, that tlie petition as amended was subject to one or more of tlie special demurrers interposed, none of the special demurrers were passed upon, and the petition set out a cause of action, though it may have been defectively stated. The court, therefore, erred in dismissing the petition on general demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.
Branch & Howard, Bond Almand, for plaintiff,
cited: Park’s *594Code, §§ 2099, 2101; Tomlinson v. Armour, 74 N. J. L. 780 (65 Atl. 883); Bishop v. Weber, 139 Mass. 411 (1 N. E. 154); Doyle v. Fuerst, 129 La. 838 (56 So. 906, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 480); Ketterer v. Armour, 247 Fed. 921; Pantaze v. West, 7 Ala. App. 599 (61 So. 42); Blood Balm Co. v. Cooper, 83 Ga. 457; Watson v. Augusta Brewing Co., 124 Ga. 121; Martin v. Waycross Coca-Cola Co., 18 Ga. App. 226; Hudgins v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 122 Ga. 695 (distinguished).

Rosser, Slaton, Phillips & Hopkins,

for defendant, cited and distinguished cases cited supra.