Hinkle v. Hixon

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hinkle v. Hixon

113 S.E. 805, 154 Ga. 193, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 328

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 16, 1922

DocketNo. 2986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 805 (Hinkle v. Hixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hinkle v. Hixon, 113 S.E. 805, 154 Ga. 193, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 328 (Ga. 1922).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

1. Fraud voids all contracts. Civil Code (1910), § 4254. 2. Parol evidence is admissible to show that a writing was either originally void or has subsequently become such. Civil Code (1910), § 5790.

3. The amendment to the plaintiff’s petition did not set forth a new cause of action, and was properly allowed by the court.

4. The petition set forth a cause of action, and the court did not err in overruling the demurrer thereto on any of the grounds thereof.

Judgment affirmed.

All'the -Justices concur, except Beele, P. J., dissenting.

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