44 S.E.2d 273 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1947
1. The motion to dismiss the writ of error is denied.
2. Where in an action for damages it is alleged that the plaintiff was bitten and injured by the dog kept by the defendant, and that the dog was vicious and accustomed to bite mankind, which was known to the defendant, the allegations are sufficient as against a general demurrer.
3. The assignments of error on the overruling of the special demurrers are treated as abandoned.
The defendant demurred generally to the petition as setting forth no cause of action, and specially to paragraph 2 of the petition on the ground that the allegations of negligence were vague, indefinite, uncertain, and insufficient in law, and called upon the plaintiff to allege and specify wherein and how said dog was vicious and wherein and how the defendant knew of said viciousness, and wherein and how the defendant was negligent. The court overruled both the general and special demurrers, and the defendant excepted. *674
1. The motion to dismiss the writ of error is denied. A bill of exceptions reciting that the court erred in overruling the general and special demurrers, and that "to this ruling the plaintiff in error excepted and now excepts and assigns the same as error upon the ground that it was contrary to law," contains a sufficient assignment of error where the demurrers themselves appear in the record. Toomey v. Read,
2. As shown by the record of file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff in Conway v. Grant,
3. Since counsel for the plaintiff in error has not insisted upon his assignments of error upon the overruling of his special demurrers, they will be treated as abandoned.
Judgment affirmed. Sutton, C. J., and Parker, J., concur.