Eibel v. Royal Indem. Co., 177 S.E. 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934). · Go Syfert
Eibel v. Royal Indem. Co., 177 S.E. 350 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Cited for
50 Ga. App. at 312 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Lewis v. Colquitt Cnty., 30 S.E.2d 801 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).published
    See Williams v. Stewart, 115 Ga. 864 ( 42 S. E. 256 ); Eibel v. Royal Indemnity Co., 50 Ga. App. 206 *312 ( 177 S. E. 350 ).
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eibel
v.
Royal Indemnity Company
24099.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Nov 26, 1934.
Published opinion
177 S.E. 350
1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 701
W. G. McRae, G. G. Finch, R. E. Church, for plaintiff., Branch & Howard, Bond Almand, for defendant.
Broyles.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
Broyles, C. J.

1. “Where an officer not authorized to issue a warrant notifies a person that he will have him arrested on a warrant and prosecuted unless lie pays a certain tax, and such person, because of such threat, pays the tax, the payment is voluntary, under the Civil Code, § 3723 [Civil Code of 1910, § 4317], and the money paid can not be recovered. A petition seeking to recover money so> paid is subject to demurrer, although it alleges that such payment was made under an urgent and immediate necessity therefor and to prevent an immediate seizure of the plaintiff’s person and property. These averments are but conclusions of law, and can avail nothing where it appears that the facts upon which they are based make the payment a voluntary one ” Williams v. Stewart, 115 Ga. 864 (1, 2) (42 S. E. 256) ; Strachan Shipping Co. v. Savannah, 168 Ga. 309 (3) (147 S. E. 555) ; Hoke v. Atlanta, 107 Ga. 416 (33 S. E. 412) ; Strange v. Franklin, 126 Ga. 715 (55 S. E. 943).

[*207] Decided November 26, 1934. W. G. McRae, G. G. Finch, R. E. Church, for plaintiff. Branch & Howard, Bond Almand, for defendant.

2. Applying' tlie foregoing rilling' to the pleadings in the instant case, the amended petition failed to set out a cause of action, and. was properly dismissed on demurrer.

3. The allegations of the petition failed to raise any constitutional question for the consideration of this court.

Judgment affirmed,.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ. ', concur.