TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wilkinson v. Smith

Wilkinson v. Smith, 176 S.E. 373 (Ga. 1934)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 19, 1934
Docket
No. 9935
Judges
Atkinson
Citations
176 S.E. 373179 Ga. 5071934 Ga. LEXIS 321

Opinion of the Court — Atkinson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Atkinson, J.

1. Objections to a petition on the grounds of multifariousness and misjoinder of parties go to the form and not to the substance of the petition, and therefore must be raised by special demurrer. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Tice, 124 Ga. 459 ( 52 S. E. 916 , 4 Ann. Cas. 200).

*508 No. 9935. September 19, 1934. Grady Gillon, for plaintiff in error. Edward F. Taylor, contra.

2. In an equity suit a demurrer to the petition as amended contained general grounds that the allegations failed to allege a cause of action, etc., and special grounds of multifariousness and misjoinder of parties. In the bill of exceptions filed by the defendant the sole assignment of error is that “ after hearing arguments on the general demurrer the court overruled said demurrer, to which ruling defendant . . then and there excepted, and here and now excepts and assigns the same as error as being contrary to law, and says that the court erred in refusing to sustain said demurrer on the grounds set forth therein.” Held, that this assignment of error relates only to the grounds of general demurrer, and does not raise any question for decision on the subjects of multifariousness or misjoinder of parties.

3. In the brief of the attorney for the plaintiff in error there is no insistence upon the general grounds of demurrer, to which alone the above assignment of error relates; and consequently, under the uniform rulings of this court, that assignment of error will be treated as abandoned.

4. The brief of the attorney for the plaintiff in error discusses the questions of multifariousness and misjoinder of parties; but those questions were not raised by the assignment of error, and can not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1935: 11936: 11938: 11941: 11948: 119352026peak 1935 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ferrell v. Wight200 S.E. 271 (Ga. 1938)
  2. Black v. Horowitz46 S.E.2d 346 (Ga. 1948)
  3. Green v. Lingo181 S.E. 148 (Ga. 1935)
  4. Levitsky v. Turk187 S.E. 107 (Ga. 1936)
  5. Grant v. Hart14 S.E.2d 860 (Ga. 1941)

Most recent

  1. Black v. Horowitz46 S.E.2d 346 (Ga. 1948)
  2. Grant v. Hart14 S.E.2d 860 (Ga. 1941)
  3. Ferrell v. Wight200 S.E. 271 (Ga. 1938)
  4. Levitsky v. Turk187 S.E. 107 (Ga. 1936)
  5. Green v. Lingo181 S.E. 148 (Ga. 1935)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ga. R.R. & Banking Co. v. Tice, 52 S.E. 916 (Ga. 1905) 88

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list