gravamen exception in Georgia

1969This situation calls for application of the equally well known principle that “Stockholders who have acquired their shares and their interest in the corporation from the alleged wrongdoers, and through the prior mismanagement, have no standing to complain thereof.” Mathews v. Fort Valley Cotton Mills, 179 Ga. 580, 587 , supra. *388 For the above and those reasons set forth in the preceding subdivision, it was error to strike the allegations pertaining to this claim of estoppel. (3) The gravamen of the claim of estoppel against Logan’s three children as beneficiaries of the inter vivos trust, i

1935The gravamen of the claim does not consist in damages for the injury in the cutting and removal of the timber, but is the “amount” which it is alleged “belonged to and was the property of petitioner,” and for which the defendant “fails and refuses to account to petitioner.” See Alexander v. Dean, 29 Ga. App. 722 (4) ( 116 S. E. 643 ).

1935The gravamen of the claim does not consist in damages for the injury in the cutting and removal of the timber, but is the “amount” which it is alleged “belonged to and was the property of petitioner,” and for which the defendant “fails and refuses to account to petitioner.” See Alexander v. Dean, 29 Ga. App. 722 (4) ( 116 S. E. 643 ).

1932If some of the jurors included in the panel are not impartial, this can not be properly reached by a challenge to the array, but by challenge to the polls.” We quote also the first sentence of headnote 2 of the decision in Blackman v. State, 80 Ga. 785 ( 7 S. E. 626 ) : “A challenge confined to four jurors is not broad enough to vitiate the array, even though otherwise good.” See also Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272 ( 34 S. E. 579 ); Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731 ( 82 S. E. 228 ); Jones v. State, 90 Ga. 616 ( 16 S. E. 380 ); Thompson v. Buice, 162 Ga. 556 ( 134 S. E. 303 ).

1932If some of the jurors included in the panel are not impartial, this can not be properly reached by a challenge to the array, but by challenge to the polls.” We quote also the first sentence of headnote 2 of the decision in Blackman v. State, 80 Ga. 785 ( 7 S. E. 626 ) : “A challenge confined to four jurors is not broad enough to vitiate the array, even though otherwise good.” See also Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272 ( 34 S. E. 579 ); Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731 ( 82 S. E. 228 ); Jones v. State, 90 Ga. 616 ( 16 S. E. 380 ); Thompson v. Buice, 162 Ga. 556 ( 134 S. E. 303 ).

1932If some of the jurors included in the panel are not impartial, this can not be properly reached by a challenge to the array, but by challenge to the polls.” We quote also the first sentence of headnote 2 of the decision in Blackman v. State, 80 Ga. 785 ( 7 S. E. 626 ) : “A challenge confined to four jurors is not broad enough to vitiate the array, even though otherwise good.” See also Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272 ( 34 S. E. 579 ); Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731 ( 82 S. E. 228 ); Jones v. State, 90 Ga. 616 ( 16 S. E. 380 ); Thompson v. Buice, 162 Ga. 556 ( 134 S. E. 303 ).

1932If some of the jurors included in the panel are not impartial, this can not be properly reached by a challenge to the array, but by challenge to the polls.” We quote also the first sentence of headnote 2 of the decision in Blackman v. State, 80 Ga. 785 ( 7 S. E. 626 ) : “A challenge confined to four jurors is not broad enough to vitiate the array, even though otherwise good.” See also Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272 ( 34 S. E. 579 ); Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731 ( 82 S. E. 228 ); Jones v. State, 90 Ga. 616 ( 16 S. E. 380 ); Thompson v. Buice, 162 Ga. 556 ( 134 S. E. 303 ).

1932If some of the jurors included in the panel are not impartial, this can not be properly reached by a challenge to the array, but by challenge to the polls.” We quote also the first sentence of headnote 2 of the decision in Blackman v. State, 80 Ga. 785 ( 7 S. E. 626 ) : “A challenge confined to four jurors is not broad enough to vitiate the array, even though otherwise good.” See also Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272 ( 34 S. E. 579 ); Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731 ( 82 S. E. 228 ); Jones v. State, 90 Ga. 616 ( 16 S. E. 380 ); Thompson v. Buice, 162 Ga. 556 ( 134 S. E. 303 ).

1932If some of the jurors included in the panel are not impartial, this can not be properly reached by a challenge to the array, but by challenge to the polls.” We quote also the first sentence of headnote 2 of the decision in Blackman v. State, 80 Ga. 785 ( 7 S. E. 626 ) : “A challenge confined to four jurors is not broad enough to vitiate the array, even though otherwise good.” See also Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272 ( 34 S. E. 579 ); Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731 ( 82 S. E. 228 ); Jones v. State, 90 Ga. 616 ( 16 S. E. 380 ); Thompson v. Buice, 162 Ga. 556 ( 134 S. E. 303 ).

1932The gist of the first question to be determined is whether the trial judge erred in overruling the defendant’s written challenge to the array, based on the ground that the sheriff, who was the prosecutor in the ease, “summoned four talesmen . . to fill the panel originally drawn for said August term, said sheriff knowing that said case would stand for trial at said term.” In order that the position of counsel for the plaintiff in error may be better understood, we quote as follows from h'is brief: “The gravamen of this exception is that the jury was improperly and illegally empanelled, for the

1932If some of the jurors included in the panel are not impartial, this can not be properly reached by a challenge to the array, but by challenge to the polls.” We quote also the first sentence of headnote 2 of the decision in Blackman v. State, 80 Ga. 785 ( 7 S. E. 626 ) : “A challenge confined to four jurors is not broad enough to vitiate the array, even though otherwise good.” See also Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272 ( 34 S. E. 579 ); Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731 ( 82 S. E. 228 ); Jones v. State, 90 Ga. 616 ( 16 S. E. 380 ); Thompson v. Buice, 162 Ga. 556 ( 134 S. E. 303 ).

1932If some of the jurors included in the panel are not impartial, this can not be properly reached by a challenge to the array, but by challenge to the polls.” We quote also the first sentence of headnote 2 of the decision in Blackman v. State, 80 Ga. 785 ( 7 S. E. 626 ) : “A challenge confined to four jurors is not broad enough to vitiate the array, even though otherwise good.” See also Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272 ( 34 S. E. 579 ); Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731 ( 82 S. E. 228 ); Jones v. State, 90 Ga. 616 ( 16 S. E. 380 ); Thompson v. Buice, 162 Ga. 556 ( 134 S. E. 303 ).

1932If some of the jurors included in the panel are not impartial, this can not be properly reached by a challenge to the array, but by challenge to the polls.” We quote also the first sentence of headnote 2 of the decision in Blackman v. State, 80 Ga. 785 ( 7 S. E. 626 ) : “A challenge confined to four jurors is not broad enough to vitiate the array, even though otherwise good.” See also Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272 ( 34 S. E. 579 ); Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731 ( 82 S. E. 228 ); Jones v. State, 90 Ga. 616 ( 16 S. E. 380 ); Thompson v. Buice, 162 Ga. 556 ( 134 S. E. 303 ).

1932If some of the jurors included in the panel are not impartial, this can not be properly reached by a challenge to the array, but by challenge to the polls.” We quote also the first sentence of headnote 2 of the decision in Blackman v. State, 80 Ga. 785 ( 7 S. E. 626 ) : “A challenge confined to four jurors is not broad enough to vitiate the array, even though otherwise good.” See also Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272 ( 34 S. E. 579 ); Coleman v. State, 141 Ga. 731 ( 82 S. E. 228 ); Jones v. State, 90 Ga. 616 ( 16 S. E. 380 ); Thompson v. Buice, 162 Ga. 556 ( 134 S. E. 303 ).