Cochran v. Carter

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cochran v. Carter

132 S.E. 921, 35 Ga. App. 286, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 697

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 20, 1926

Docket16716

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 132 S.E. 921 (Cochran v. Carter) 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

Cochran v. Carter, 132 S.E. 921, 35 Ga. App. 286, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. In a suit upon a written contract, in which the sole ground of defense was that the writing did not express the true agreement between the parties, where the defendant’s answer alleged that the defendant executed the contract without reading it, but failed to. show that he could not read and was for that reason imposed upon, or that the contract was signed under some emergency which exbused the failure to read, or that such failure was brought about by the fraud or artifice of the opposite party, the answer set forth no valid defense, and was properly stricken. Widincamp v. Patterson, 33 Ga. App. 483 (2) (127 S. E. 158), and cases cited.

2. The defendant’s answer having been properly stricken, the suit was then in default, and it being one in which the amount of the plaintiff’s claim was liquidated, the plaintiff was entitled to take a verdict as if each and every allegation of the petition had been proved by evidence. Civil Code (1910), §§ 5539, 5662; Pape v. Woolford Realty Co., 35 Ga. App. 284 (6) (134 S. E. 174).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., eoneur.

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

Bell, J.

1. In a suit upon a written contract, in which the sole ground of defense was that the writing did not express the true agreement between the parties, where the defendant’s answer alleged that the defendant executed the contract without reading it, but failed to. show that he could not read and was for that reason imposed upon, or that the contract was signed under some emergency which exbused the failure to read, or that such failure was brought about by the fraud or artifice of the opposite party, the answer set forth no valid defense, and was properly stricken. Widincamp v. Patterson, 33 Ga. App. 483 (2) (127 S. E. 158), and cases cited.

2. The defendant’s answer having been properly stricken, the suit was then in default, and it being one in which the amount of the plaintiff’s claim was liquidated, the plaintiff was entitled to take a verdict as if each and every allegation of the petition had been proved by evidence. Civil Code (1910), §§ 5539, 5662; Pape v. Woolford Realty Co., 35 Ga. App. 284 (6) (134 S. E. 174).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E. 921, 35 Ga. App. 286, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-carter-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack