Clements v. Hollingsworth
| Decision Date | 16 March 1949 |
| Docket Number | 16483,16484. |
| Citation | 52 S.E.2d 465,205 Ga. 153 |
| Parties | CLEMENTS v. HOLLINGSWORTH. HOLLINGSWORTH v. CLEMENTS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 28, 1949.
Jule & A. C. Felton, III, of Montezuma, for plaintiff in error.
B F. Neal, of Montezuma, and Leonard Farkas & Walter H Burt, of Albany, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
On a former appearance of the present case in this court we held that the petition did not state a cause of action and that the court erred in overruling general demurrers to both the main and the ancillary petition as amended. Clements v Hollingsworth, 202 Ga. 684, 44 S.E.2d 381. The opinion filed contains a full statement of the pleadings as they stood when we considered the case before, and it is therefore not necessary to repeat them. They can be seen by reference thereto. On the return of the case to the trial court, the plaintiff again amended her main petition by alleging: 'The checks referred to in the petition, to wit, A check for $10,000 and a check for $4210.31, both of said checks were turned over and delivered to defendant, not in consideration of any contract or any obligation nor as a gift, but for the use and benefit of Mrs. Johnnie Bell Clements, the wife of defendant, at the time of the delivery of said checks and up to her death.' The amendment was allowed subject to demurrer. The defendant renewed all demurrers previously filed to all of the pleadings, and interposed further general and special demurrers to the main petition as finally amended. All of the demurrers were overruled. To that ruling exceptions pendente lite were timely presented, certified, and filed. On the trial the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion for new trial was in due time made and afterwards amended by adding 135 special grounds. The amended motion was overruled and error is assigned upon that judgment and upon the exceptions pendente lite. Held:
1. A plaintiff is required to state his cause of action, legal or equitable, or both, plainly, fully, and distinctly. Code, § 81-101.
2. It is an elementary rule of construction, as applied to a pleading, that it will be construed on demurrer thereto most strongly against the pleader. Johnson v. Sears, 199 Ga. 432, 34 S.E.2d 541.
3. A petition for accounting need not allege the amount due, but must allege facts showing that something is actually due. Gould v. Barrow, 117 Ga. 458, 43 S.E. 702; Smith v. Hancock, 163 Ga. 222, 136 S.E. 52; Durden-Powers Co. v. O'Brien, 165 Ga. 728, 142 S.E. 90; Bowman v. Chapman, 179 Ga. 49, 175 S.E. 241.
4. Except as they may be substantially changed by amendment, prior rulings made by this court on the pleadings become the law of the case, and are binding upon the trial court as well as this court on a subsequent appearance of the same case. Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Third National Bank of Atlanta, 125 Ga. 489, 54 S.E. 621; City of Atlanta v. Smith, 165 Ga. 146, 140 S.E. 369; McEntire v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 174 Ga. 158, 162 S.E. 134; Lankford v. Milhollin, 201 Ga. 594, 40 S.E.2d 376.
5. When the case was here before, 202 Ga. 684, 4a, 44 S.E.2d 381, 387, we held that the petition failed to state a cause of action for several reasons stated in the opinion, among which was this one: "Unless and until there be facts or circumstances to indicate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willis v. Hill, 42881
...particular year and its source or sources. It is presumed that all men perform the duties required of them by law, Clements v. Hollingsworth, 205 Ga. 153(5), 52 S.E.2d 465, and this affords a presumption of correctness as to the copy produced under notice. And compare Code § 38-705; Campbel......
-
Beadles v. Bowen, 39473
...Co. v. McRitchie, 45 Ga.App. 697(3), 166 S.E. 49; Knight Drug Co. v. Naismith, 73 Ga.App. 793, 796, 38 S.E.2d 87; Clements v. Hollingsworth, 205 Ga. 153(5), 52 S.E.2d 465; Central Truckaway System v. Harrigan, 79 Ga.App. 117, 127(7), 53 S.E.2d 186. Again, the burden of proof is on the defen......
-
Gruber v. Fulton County
...of any showing to the contrary--and there was no such showing in that record--it must be presumed that he did so. Clements v. Hollingsworth, 205 Ga. 153(5), 52 S.E.2d 465. Since the statute requires that the receiver of the return administer the oath to the taxpayer, for the same reason it ......
-
Collier v. Hirsch, 39637
...missing in the amended motion, it is the law of this case that the motion cannot withstand the general demurrer. Clements v. Hollingsworth, 205 Ga. 153, 154, 52 S.E.2d 465. As the trial judge stated in his order sustaining the demurrer, the amendment does not show that the defendant knew of......