Broyles, C. J.
The amended petition, properly construed as a whole, was not subject to any ground, either general or special, of the de° murrer interposed, and the court properly so ruled.
Judgment affirmed.
Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concu/r.
The defendant demurred generally and on numerous special grounds. In the demurrer it is contended that the petition is duplicitous, in that it does not show whether the action is intended to be brought on a breach of contract or a breach of duty, and, if on a breach of duty, whether for a slander or an interference with the privacy of the plaintiff. It is also contended that the petition fails to show that the acts of the alleged servants and agents were within the scope of their employment and done under their master’s authority;'that the allegations as to their authority are merely statements of a conclusion. The court overruled the demurrer, and the defendant excepted.
Edward 8* Elliott, for plaintiff in error,
cited: 116 Ga. 309 (2); 78 Ga. 733; 6 Ga. App. 470; 10 Ga. App. 169; 144 Ga. 695; 12 Ga. App. 214; 20 Ga. App. 546; 142 Cal. 681 (65 L. R. A. 88); 111 Ga. 814; 108 Ga. 37; 127 Ga. 194 (7); 126 Ga. 404 (3); 100 Ga. 213; 106 Ga. 460; 12 Ga. App. 318; 4 Ga. App. 131 (4); 127 Ga. 805 (3); 131 Ga. 375-7; 133 Ga. 414 (3); 142 Ga. 415; 12 Ga. App. 364; 128 Ga. 567, 573; 21 Ga. App. 368 (5a); 136 Fed. 161 (66 C. C. A. 469, 69 L. R. A. 653).
Robert L. Golding, Oliver & Oliver, contra,
cited: 193 N. Y. 397 (21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 860, 86 N. E. 527); 88 Kan. 58 (42 *536L. R. A. (N. S.) 830, 127 Pac. 612); 54 Ga. 635, 638-9; 77 Ga. 409; 100 Ga. 213; 113 Ga. 414; 126 Ga. 404; 14 Ga. App. 311-12 (1,2); 10 Ga. App. 693 (3); 9 Ga. App. 375; 130 Ga. 742.