Andrews v. Stanton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Andrews v. Stanton

153 S.E.2d 575, 115 Ga. App. 105, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1026

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 27, 1967

Docket42326

StatusPublished

This text of 153 S.E.2d 575 (Andrews v. Stanton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrews v. Stanton, 153 S.E.2d 575, 115 Ga. App. 105, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1026 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

Where in defense to a suit on a note the defendant files a cross action alleging that the plaintiff contracted to supervise the construction of a dwelling for the defendant and breached the contract in certain particulars by failing to supervise the construction of the dwelling, and the cross action shows that the defendant is entitled to some, if not all, of the items claimed as damages in the cross action, it is error for the trial judge to sustain a motion to dismiss the cross action. Blalock v. Barrett, 28 Ga. App. 444, 446 (111 SE 697); Bailey & Carney Buggy Co. v. Guthrie, 1 Ga. App. 350 (3) (58 SE 103). Under these circumstances the judgment in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Ross Arnold, for appellant.. Archer, Patrick & Sidener, James H. Archer, Jr., for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pannell, Judge.

Where in defense to a suit on a note the defendant files a cross action alleging that the plaintiff contracted to supervise the construction of a dwelling for the defendant and breached the contract in certain particulars by failing to supervise the construction of the dwelling, and the cross action shows that the defendant is entitled to some, if not all, of the items claimed as damages in the cross action, it is error for the trial judge to sustain a motion to dismiss the cross action. Blalock v. Barrett, 28 Ga. App. 444, 446 (111 SE 697); Bailey & Carney Buggy Co. v. Guthrie, 1 Ga. App. 350 (3) (58 SE 103). Under these circumstances the judgment in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Ross Arnold, for appellant.. Archer, Patrick & Sidener, James H. Archer, Jr., for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E.2d 575, 115 Ga. App. 105, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-stanton-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack