*1 re d) 10 and 11 of paragraphs and original of and b, (a) of paragraph 5 No. and 34256, demurrers in newed case they refer 34257, insofar case renewed demurrers in No. damages, should injuries part the husband’s the wife’s of in objection of these grounds been other have sustained. (a) overruled. properly were paragraphs demurrers to be esti question, to jury of the wife’s services is value their own evidence and observation light in mated of Ry. Shaw, & Power Co. experience. 146(3) 22 and renewed 11, 19, 20, 21, 23 of
Paragraphs negligence allegations of attack in No. 34256 murrer by paragraph herein as shown set out in the statement facts they are con ground 16 of the as amended on pleaded, and by the facts not warranted pleader clusions ought to as what do information sufficient para been defendant. have conclusions, objectionable as mere graph 16 as amended are furnishing in information. nor are indefinite sufficient general properly demurrers overruled court both should have special cases. The demurrers in cases both 5(b) 6 of been pointed 4(b), sustained as divisions special properly over- opinion. All other demurrers ruled. part part reversed both cases. affirmed
Gardner, P.J., Carlisle, J., concur. WOOD v. et
34195. SANDERS al. *2 Thomas,
William A. in error.
Wright,
Love,
&
contra.
Oxford
question
C.J. The
for consideration here whether
Sutton,
is
support
evidence
there was
judge,
the trial
before whom
tried
jury,
without a
in favor According
defendants.
to the
appeal
in the
Court
Fulton County,
which were certified
as true
rendered his
judge, he
that-
gratuitous
bailees
that
because he found
find-
Insofar
in the case.
as his
been no
there had
that the defendants
established
ing
gratuitous
of a
bailment
raise-
can
goods, lawfully
possession
obtained
the defendants-
alleged in
complaint,
for she
plaintiff testified
possession
were in
house,
and had it
at the
placed
there.
whether
controlling
the trial was
The main
issue on
property by
there
107-101 that
provided by Code
defendants. While it is
§
a conversion of
shall
when
possession
defendant
of trover where the
is
in an action
apply where the
brought,
rule does not
the action is
present case,,
In
lawfully acquired.
possession was
sued for in their
the defendants disclaimed title to
*3
of the
they
lawfully acquired possession
prop
as
had
plea, and,
an
plaintiff
it
for the
to
erty
bailees,
was
goods
demand for and
the
or a
actual conversion of
be
by a bailee
an actual
redeliver them. “Unless
to
against him will
lie without a
shown, an action
trover
and failure to redeliver.” Love
demand
the
previous
103).
(4
Rabun,
Baston v.
Fowler,
S. E.
less v.
136
(1)
(41
Vaughn Wright,
v.
While the property, gotten her but had never for the remainder of ants for, testimony positive her did back the items sued not show a by defendants, refusal to redeliver defendants testi- plaintiff repeatedly away fied that had asked the to take but that had property, and that so, get never refused let her shed. to judge trial authorized find that there had been no de- for her by mand no refusal her, deliver as would defendants to such have been evi- Accordingly, conversion. dence of a *4 that there defendants was sup- ported by was his favor of the de- fendants. Appellate Division of the Court of County Fulton affirming grant
did not err a new trial. Felton, J., concurs. Worrill, J., concurs affirmed. specially. concur I J., concurring specially.
Felton, never had opinion the defendants my reason any possession of v. DOBBS.
34188. BURGER