Adkins v. Salmon , 32 Ga. App. 459 ( 1924 )

Jenkins, P. J.

1. In an action of bail-trover it is necessary that in the petition “the goods be described with such particularity as will enable the court to seize the chattels for which the action ’ is brought, and hold them for restitution in the event of final recovery by the plaintiff.” McElhannon v. Farmers Alliance Warehouse Co., 95 Ga. 670, 672 (22 S. E. 686); Gatlin v. Matthews, 16 Ga. App. 645 (85 S. E. 953).

2. “Pleading which is demurred to as a whole, if good in part, will stand, and the demurrer be overruled.” May v. Jones, 88 Ga. 308 (4), 312 (14 S. E. 552, 15 L. R. A. 637, 30 Am. St. R. 154); Lowe v. Burke, 79 Ga. 164 (2) (3 S. E. 449); Harris County v. Brady, 115 Ga. 767 (2) (42 S. E. 71); Medlock v. Aycock, 16 Ga. App. 813 (86 S. E. 455); Columbus Electric Co. v. Wheat, 32 Ga. App. 366 (123 S. E. 44). “A general demurrer should not prevail where any part of the petition is good.” Mayor &c. of Athens v. Smith, 111 Ga. 870 (2) (36 S. E. 955).

3. A description of property in a bail-trover petition as “one gray mare named Fanner,” of a stated value, and as “in possession” of the defendant, is sufficient as against a general demurrer to the petition. Lamar v. Coleman, 88 Ga. 417 (2) (14 S. E. 608); Beaty v. Sears, 132 Ga. 516 (64 S. E. 321); Nichols v. Hampton, 46 Ga. 256; Farkas v. Duncan, 94 Ga. 30 (20 S. E. 267); Reynolds v. Jones, 7 Ga. App. 123, 125 (66 S. E. 395); Denton v. Hannah, 12 Ga. App. 495 (6) (77 S. E. 672); Thomason v. Decatur County Bank, 28 Ga. App. 422 (1 a, 2) (111 S. E. 578); Reynolds v. Tifton Guano Co., 20 Ga. App. 49 (1), 50, 51 (92 S. E. 389); First Nat. Bank of Fitzgerald v. Spicer, 10 Ga. App. 503 (1 a) (73 S. E. 753).

4. The item referred to in the preceding paragraph having been described in the petition sufficiently to withstand the defendants’ general demurrer, the fact that the petition included other items, which may have been inadequately described and might have been stricken or required to be amended had there been a timely special demurrer thereto, would not invalidate the petition as a whole, and the court properly overruled the general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.