1. In a suit to recover for the premiums on insurance policies it is not necessary to attach the policies or copies thereof as exhibits to the petition.

2. The overruling of a motion for new trial on the general grounds only was proper where there was any competent and legal evidence to sustain a judgment rendered by the judge who tried the case without a jury.

Georgia Insurance Service, Inc. brought suit against E. L. Blume, John Hames and James A. Bagwell, as the owners of Blume's Express, to recover the premiums for policies of insurance issued and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission insuring E. L. Blume, d/b/a Blume's Express. Blume filed no responsive pleading and did not appear, but was adjudicated a bankrupt in the Federal court. Hames and Bagwell filed demurrers seeking to have the policies attached as exhibits to the petition and filed answers denying indebtedness, The demurrers were overruled. Upon a trial before the judge without a jury the evidence disclosed that the policies were issued at the request of John Hames who represented to the plaintiff at the time that he and Bagwell had acquired Blume's Express which had a banana franchise from the Interstate Commerce Commission and that it was necessary to get policies issued and filed to clear with the Commission. A statement was sent to Hames for the premiums and was not paid and he was called a few days later on the telephone when he promised to send a check to cover, but did not. Further promises of payment were made by him on two separate occasions, and finally after due notice the policies were canceled. Plaintiff now seeks to recover for the premiums earned during the period prior to cancellation.

1. An itemized statement of the account sued on, giving the full information as to the amount of earned premium alleged to be due upon each of the policies issued, the types of coverage and numbers of the policies was attached to the petition as an exhibit. The demurrers calling for copies of the policies were without merit and were properly overruled. Code 81-105 requires writings to be attached to the petition only when "they constitute the cause of action, or the relief prayed for must be based thereon." Neither condition exists here. And see Ittner Bros. v. Farmers State Bank, 15 Ga. App. 235 (82 SE 909); Shaheen v. Kiker, 105 Ga. App. 692 (1) (125 SE2d 541).

2. The only question raised by the motion for new trial is whether there was any competent, legal evidence to support the judgment. The manager of plaintiff testified that Hames came in personally to arrange for the issuance of the policies, represented that he and Bagwell had acquired the truck line, that he then promised to pay the premiums, and further that on later occasions Hames repeated his promise to pay at least three times. Upon the trial Hames testified that the truck line was not owned by him or Bagwell, but was owned by Harold Investment & Insurance Company, a corporation, which acquired it from Blume.

A question was raised by the evidence as to whether Hames held himself out as an owner or as a partner in the ownership of the truck line in arranging for the issuance of the policies, whether he personally obligated himself to make payment of the premiums, and whether the plaintiff, relying upon his representations of ownership and his promise of payment, issued the policies. The judge resolved the questions against Hames, as we think he was authorized to do.

The question as to what relationship was relied upon in bringing the action might have been raised by demurrer, but that was not done. Consequently if, as the judge concluded, the evidence authorized a judgment against him but not against the other defendants, there was no error in the entering of a judgment against him and a nonsuit as to the others.