Legal Opinion
Darley v. Ehrlich & Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided March 13, 1924No. 15039PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
1. The right to maintain the present trover action was not negatived by the allegation that we plaintiff was suing for the use of another. “His petition” having alleged that the property sued for was “the property of petitioner,” the reference to a usee was mere surplusage, to be ignored. See Mitchell v. Georgia & Alabama Ry., 111 Ga. 760 (2) (36 S. E. 971, 51 L. R. A. 622); Norcross Butter &c. Co. v. Summerour, 114 Ga. 156 (3) (39 S. E. 870); McEachern v. Edmondson, 122 Ga. 80 (49 S. E. 798); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Ramsay, 137 Ga. 573 (2) (73 S. E. 847, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 108);…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Mitchell v. Georgia & Alabama RailwaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Sullivan v. CurlingSupreme Court of Georgia · 1919
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MorseSupreme Court of Georgia · 1915
- Norcross Butter & Cheese Manufacturing Co. v. SummerourSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Millhiser v. . ErdmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Livingston v. Epsten-Roberts Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1934