Guaranty Mutual Life Insurance v. Seals
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Georgia Realty & Insurance v. Oakland Consolidated of Georgia, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
- MILLICAN ELECTRIC CO. INC. v. Fisher (Ga. Ct. App. 1960)
- Gunn v. Johnson & Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)
- Lipscomb v. Watkins (Ga. Ct. App. 1922)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Questions as to the sufficiency of a petition can not be raised in a motion for a new trial. Where the defendant has not excepted to the sufficiency of the petition, either by demurrer or by a motion in the nature of a general demurrer to dismiss the plaintiff’s case for want of a cause of action appearing in the petition, he can not, under the general assignment of error “ that the verdict is contrary to law and against the principles of justice and equity,” in a motion for a ^new trial, insist that the petition does not set out a cause of action. Roberts v. Keeler, 111 Ga. 181 (6), 184 (30 S. E. 617); Kelly v. Strouse, 116 Ga. 872 (6), 888, 896 (43 S. E. 280). This is true even though the verdict and judgment were rendered in a case on appeal to the superior court from the justice court, and where the defendant had no opportunity to file a demurrer to the petition. This ruling is not in conflict with anything contained in headnote 5 or the corresponding division of the opinion in Kelly v. Strouse, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.