Court Opinion

ID: 9849951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:50:06.640548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:29.590929
License: Public Domain

*802On Motion for Rehearing.
According to the pronouncement of Miller v. Southern Ry. Co., 21 Ga. App. 367 (1) (94 S. E. 619), and Coffee v. South Georgia &c Ins. Assn., 29 Ga. App. 685 (116 S. E. 653), the petition was not wanting in particularity because the name of the officer or agent who made the recommendation as to the mix of the spray was not set forth.
Felton, Chief Judge, dissenting. Number 4 of the defendant’s demurrer is as follows: “Defendant demurs specially to paragraph 7 of plaintiff’s petition as amended on the grounds that same is vague and indefinite and fails to specify what agent, employee or representative of this defendant recommended that the plaintiff mix the spray in the proportion of two quarts of concentrate to 100 gallons of water.” The defendant is a corporation and I think it was entitled to the information called for by this demurrer. The case cited by the majority, Miller v. Southern Railway Co., 21 Ga. App. 367 (94 S. E. 619), is not authority, in my opinion, for-the majority ruling because in that case the petition described the company’s agent in charge of a specified ticket-office of the company, at a specified time and place and the company was presumed to know his name.

Townsend, J., concurs in the foregoing dissent.