DuBignon v. Wright
50 S.E. 65, 122 Ga. 263, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 167
Opinion
“ The defendant below was not entitled to open and conclude because he did not, by admissions in his answer, make out a prima facie case for the plaintiff and thus relieve him from the necessity of introducing evidence. Admissions made by a defendant for the purpose of gaining this advantage must be in his pleadings and not merely oral." Dorough v. Johnson, 108 Ga. 812, and cases there cited. The ruling above laid down is [264] applicable to the case now under consideration; and the judgment of the court below is, therefore, Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DuBignon v. Wright, 50 S.E. 65, 122 Ga. 263, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 167 (Ga. 1905).
50 S.E. 65 (DuBignon v. Wright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
International Indemnity Co. v. Coachman
351 S.E.2d 224 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
State Highway Department v. Smith
141 S.E.2d 590 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Shields v. Bodenhamer
178 S.E. 294 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Barfield v. Smith
157 S.E. 121 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Van Winkle Gin & Machine Works v. Pittman
58 S.E. 379 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)