Court Opinion

ID: 9586755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:14:31.304832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:49.593657
License: Public Domain

On motion for rehearing.
Hall, Judge.
In its motion for rehearing the defendant contends that the following language, from Headnote No. 1 of Borochoff v. Fowler, 98 Ga. App. 411 (105 SE2d 764), is the law *410of the case: "... a petition which alleges a cause of action for an injury which would otherwise come within the exclusive remedy provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Act but which does not affirmatively show that the employer has in its employ 10 or more employees is not subject to general demurrer on the ground that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is under that act.” Irrespective of the above language in the headnote, the opinion in the case shows beyond peradventure that the question decided by the present opinion was not adjudicated by this court on the former appearance of this case.

Motion for rehearing denied.

Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.