History
  • No items yet
midpage
Smith v. Carter
20 Ga. App. 391
Ga. Ct. App.
1917
Check Treatment
Wade, 0. J.

1. Aside from other questions, construing the suit brought in the justice’s court as contended for by the plaintiff and most favorably to him, it was an action by a member of an unincorporated fraternal association, to recover dues paid by him to his partners in the association in accordance with the rules of the partnership, because his membership therein had been terminated at their option and against his will. Generally, such a suit can not be maintained, except for an accounting in a court of equity. Bennett v. Woolfolk, 15 Ga. 213; Prentice v. Elliott, 72 Ga. 154; King v. Courson, 57 Ga. 11; Gilbert v. *392Crystal Fountain Lodge, 80 Ga. 284 (4 S. E. 905, 12 Am. St. R. 255); Paulk v. Creech, 8 Ga. App. 738 (70 S. E. 145). In this suit nothing is alleged to take it out of the usual rule. See Miller v. Freeman, 111 Ga. 654 (36 S. E. 961, 51 L. R. A. 504).

Decided June 27, 1917. Certiorari; from Muscogee superior court—Judge Munro. December 30, 1916. Ed. Wohlwender, Paul Blanchard, for plaintiff.

2. The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the petition . for certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

George andLulce, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Smith v. Carter
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Jun 27, 1917
Citation: 20 Ga. App. 391
Docket Number: 8394
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.