20 S.E.2d 758 | Ga. | 1942
1. So far as it might be contended that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover upon the theory of a parol gift, such contention must fail, because no gift was alleged with sufficient definiteness, nor was it alleged that valuable improvements were erected upon the property upon the faith of the donor's promise or declared intention to make a gift. Code, §§ 37-802, 37-804; Holland v. Atkinson,
2. If the plaintiff could recover as contended for in Coffey v. Cobb,
3. Under the foregoing principles the petition failed to allege a cause of action, and the court erred in overruling the general demurrer.
Judgment reversed. All the Justicesconcur.