Johnson v. Hopkins
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Fish, C. J.
1. A recital in a bill of exceptions that an amendment to the petition was allowed over objection of the defendant, without showing what ground of objection was made, does not sufficiently present any question for decision to this court. See Condon v. Dehart, 143 Ga. 185 (3) ( 84 S. E. 540 ).
2. Grounds of demurrer which aver that stated paragraphs of the petition should be stricken because “too uncertain, indefinite, and vague” to “entitle plaintiff to recover,” or “to fix any liability upon defendant,” without specifying in what particulars these paragraphs are subject to these criticisms, are themselves too general to present questions for decision to this court. See Askew v. Thompson, 129 Ga. 325 (3), 328 ( 58 S. E. 854 ).
3. “Where matter of account against an insolvent cotenant for past profits of the land is involved, and where partition of the premises can not be made without a sale, equity has jurisdiction to decree partition and account.” Lowe v. Burke, 79 Ga. 164 ( 3 S. E. 449 ).
4. The petition as amended was not subject to general demurrer, nor to any of the special demurrers as set forth.
Judgment affirmed.
By five Justices, all concurring.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.