Card v. Chichester's Baconsfield Pharmacy, Inc.

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: Card v. Chichester's Baconsfield Pharmacy, Inc., 141 S.E.2d 790, 111 Ga.App. 358 (Ga. App. 1965)
• Decision Date: 16 March 1965
• Docket Number: No. 3,No. 41057,41057,3
• Parties: James CARD v. CHICHESTER'S BACONSFIELD PHARMACY, INC

Page 790

141 S.E.2d 790

111 Ga.App. 358

James CARD v. CHICHESTER'S BACONSFIELD PHARMACY, INC.

No. 41057.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

March 16, 1965.

Adams, O'Neal, Steele, Thornton & Hemingway, H. T. O'Neal, Jr., Macon, for plaintiff in error.

Jones, Sparks, Benton & Cork, Frank C. Jones, Macon, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

PER CURIAM.

This case is controlled adversely to the plaintiff in error by the case of Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp., 110 Ga.App. 170, 138 S.E.2d 77. In division 2 of the opinion in Gibson, the principal holding is that the petition did not state a cause of action against the defendant for negligence since nothing was alleged which, if proved, would be sufficient to show negligence. That holding at least in the badly split decision received the unquestioned concurrence of five judges, a majority of the court. See Judge Hall's special concurrence in which he agreed fully with Judge Eberhardt's view on this point.

The petition here in all material aspects has such a resemblance to the petition in Gibson as to be essentially the same. It follows that the holding in Gibson is applicable here and requires affirmance of the trial court's judgment in sustaining ...