Mayor & Council of Athens v. Smith, 36 S.E. 955 (Ga. 1900). · Go Syfert
Search
Mayor & Council of Athens v. Smith, 36 S.E. 955 (Ga. 1900). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1902 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1902 1964 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
q1 “a general demurrer should not prevail where any part of the petition is good.”0 citing cases2 citing courts quote it · Neutral (inherited from the case)
    Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
    Mayor and Council of Athens
    v.
    Smith
    Supreme Court of Georgia.
    Aug 8, 1900.
    Published opinion
    36 S.E. 955
    1900 Ga. LEXIS 862
    F. G. Shackelford and Strickland & Green, for plaintiff in error., E. S. Price, W. M. Smith, and Lumpkin & Burnett, contra.
    Simmons.
    Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
    Simmons, C. J.

    1. A married woman living with her husband may bring an action in her own name for physical injuries sustained by her. Civil Code, §2475; City of Atlanta v. Dorsey, 73 Ga. 479 ; Pavlovski v. Thornton, 89 Ga. 829.

    2. A general motion to dismiss a suit “because it is a suit for a tort by a married woman living with her husband, in her own name alone,” was properly overruled, where the petition set out a cause of- action against the defendant and prayed for certain elements of damage for which the plaintiff could recover, although it may also have contained prayers for other elements of damage for which the plaintiff had no right to sue. A general demurrer should not prevail where any part of the petition is good. Reese v. Reese, 89 Ga. 645, 652, and cases cited; Munnerlyn v. Savings Bank, 88 Ga. 339 ; May v. Jones, 88 Ga. 308, 312, and cases cited. See also Baer v. Christian, 83 Ga. 322.

    3. The evidence warranted the verdict for those elements of damage alleged in the petition for which the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and the trial judge did not abuse his decretion in overruling a motion for a new trial based on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. Judgment affirmed.

    All the Justices concurring.