Katz v. Turner

• Decision Date: 06 April 1934
• Docket Number: No. 23397.,23397.
• Citation: 49 Ga.App. 81,174 S.E. 167
• Parties: KATZ . v. TURNER.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

49 Ga.App. 81

174 S.E. 167

KATZ .

v.TURNER.

No. 23397.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 1

April 6, 1934.

.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from City Court of Atlanta; Hugh M. Dorsey, Judge.

Suit by Odessa Turner against D. G. Katz. To review the judgment, defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

White, Poole, Pearce & Gershon, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Thos. E. Scott, Norman De Krasner, Bert Thomas, and Sidney J. Goodman, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

GUERRY, Judge.

1. Where a trial judge, In sustaining a special demurrer, provides an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend his petition, and the amended petition is sufficient to withstand the amended demurrer (or the motion' to dismiss, as in the present case), the case is'still in court and should not he dismissed. The court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the petition. Olds Motor Works v. Olds Oakland Co., 140 Ga. 400, 78 S. E. 902.

2. A demurrer, being a critic, must itself be free from faults. Douglas, Augusta & Gulf Ry. Co. v. Swindle, 2 Ga. App. 550, 59 S. E. 600; Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co. v. Lyons, 5 Ga. App. 668, 63 S. E. 862. A special demurrer must itself clearly point out the special information desired or necessary. An allegation stating that food was prepared for supper at 6 p. m. and eaten at supper is a sufficient allegation, as against demurrer, that petition does not show when the food was eaten. If the exact time of the eating was material, the special demurrer should have called for same. Medlock v. Ay-cock, 16 Ga. App. 813, 86 S. E. 455.

3. A special demurrer containing 53 grounds should itself point out with particularity the alleged special defects. "A special demurrer goes to the structure merely, and it must distinctly and particularly specify wherein the defect lies." Scott v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 18 Ga. App. 159, 88 S. E. 995; Alford v. Davis, 21 Ga. App. 820, 95 S. E. 313; Oowart v. Savannah Electric Co., 5 Ga. App. 664, 63 S. E. 804. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

BROYLES, C. J., and MacINTYRE, J., concur.