Higginbotham v. Conway
39 S.E. 550, 113 Ga. 1155, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 528
Opinion
The reporter’s statement sufficiently sets forth the nature of this case and the character of the answer filed by the defendant. The court sustained a general demurrer to this defense. We think this was clearly error. Portions of the answer may not be able to withstand a special demurrer, but as against a general demurrer there is unquestionably enough in them to take the case to the jury. See Treadaway v. Richards, 92 Ga. 264.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Higginbotham v. Conway, 39 S.E. 550, 113 Ga. 1155, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 528 (Ga. 1901).
39 S.E. 550 (Higginbotham v. Conway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bailey v. Bell
69 S.E.2d 272 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1952)
Robbins v. Calhoun National Bank
168 S.E. 116 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Short v. Jordan
146 S.E. 31 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Tuxworth v. Barber
94 S.E. 1042 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
DeLaigle v. Shuptrine
94 S.E. 904 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Hicks v. Hamilton
59 S.E. 331 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Harris County v. Brady
42 S.E. 71 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)