Howard v. Parrish
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action on contract; from city court of Statesboro — Judge Proctor. July 13, 1921. Invalidity of the contract was the ground upon which the general demurrer to the petition was sustained, according to the briefs of counsel, the contention of counsel for the defendant being that the written contract sued on was void because it did not obligate the defendant to furnish any particular quantity of logs to be sawed for any stated period of time, or from any particular tract of…
Read the full summary
Action on contract; from city court of Statesboro — Judge Proctor. July 13, 1921. Invalidity of the contract was the ground upon which the general demurrer to the petition was sustained, according to the briefs of counsel, the contention of counsel for the defendant being that the written contract sued on was void because it did not obligate the defendant to furnish any particular quantity of logs to be sawed for any stated period of time, or from any particular tract of land, or to furnish all the logs suitable for sawing on the particular place mentioned therein, and that proof of the…
1Opinion of the CourtLuke, J.
The petition as amended fails to set forth a cause of action. It was therefore not error for the court to sustain the general demurrer.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. R. Lee Moore, for plaintiff,
cited: Civil Code (1910), §§ 4222, 4266, 4268 (1), 5789; 126 Ga. 800; 9 Ga. App. 718; 139 Ga. 453; 95 Ga. 652 (1); 12 Ga. App. 798.
Deal & Renfroe, for defendant.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pearson v. HorneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Novelty Hat Manufacturing Co. v. WisebergSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Mimms v. Betts Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
- Maynard & Cheeves v. RenderSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895