Sellers v. City of Summerville

2 Citing cases

  1. City of Summerville v. Sellers

    94 S.E.2d 69 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956)   Cited 12 times

    On exceptions to the trial judge's rulings as to the sufficiency of the pleadings, the case has been before this court on two former occasions. Sellers v. City of Summerville, 88 Ga. App. 109 ( 76 S.E.2d 99); Sellers v. City of Summerville, 91 Ga. App. 105 ( 85 S.E.2d 56). A rather detailed history of the litigation is necessary in order that the exceptions taken and the rulings made on the present appeal may be clearly understood. On June 13, 1924, the Georgia Railway Power Company, the name of which corporation has been changed to the Georgia Power Company, was granted a franchise by the City of Summerville, by the provisions of which the Power Company was granted permission to gratuitously use the municipality's streets in the erection, installation and maintenance of utility poles and other equipment necessary in the distribution of electric energy.

  2. Piedmont Life Insurance Co. v. Bell

    119 S.E.2d 63 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 28 times
    Finding a divisible contract when successive performances existed

    We see no reason why the statute of limitation or the statute of frauds may not be raised by a special plea in the answer itself. See Sellers v. City of Summerville, 91 Ga. App. 105, 109 (13) ( 85 S.E.2d 56) and Voyles v. Carr, 173 Ga. 627 (3) ( 160 S.E. 801). Special grounds 28, 31, and 32 are directed to paragraph 6 of the defendant's answer, which reads, "Answering Paragraph 8 of the plaintiff's petition, the defendant avers that, by formal action in January, 1950, the board of directors of defendant gave instructions that the plaintiff should be notified that his services would not be required by the defendant after February 1, 1950," attacking this paragraph on the ground that it is evasive and not responsive, that it does not allege to whom the alleged instructions were given, and that it alleges irrelevant and immaterial matter in that it was not alleged that the instructions were carried out. Since the plaintiff's petition states that the president notified him he would not be permitted to sell any further shares of stock after February 1, 1950, the defendant's answer in effect admits that the board of directors gave such instructions.