Lawrence v. Stephens

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lawrence v. Stephens

92 S.E. 952, 20 Ga. App. 279, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 864

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1917

Docket8402

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 952 (Lawrence v. Stephens) 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

Lawrence v. Stephens, 92 S.E. 952, 20 Ga. App. 279, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 864 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Bkoyles, P. J.

1. Under the facts as disclosed by the- record, the plea in abatement, which was filed by the defendant and allowed by the court, set up no valid defense to the plaintiff’s suit, and the court did not err in thereafter striking it on an oral motion made by the plaintiff’s counsel.

2. The plea in abatement having been stricken, and the defendant having introduced no evidence to sustain his other pleas, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the full amount sued for.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Sibley & Sibley, for plaintiff in error, cited:

Howes v. Chester, 33 Ga. 90; Cook v. Ga. Land Co., 120 Ga. 1068 (1); Merritt v. Bagwell, 70 Ga. 578 (3a); Civil Code (1910), §§ 4331, 5678; Rogers v. Hoskins, 15 Ga. 270, 273.

Allen & Pottle, contra, cited:

Augusta R. Co. v. Dorsey, 68 Ga. 228 (2); Dykes v. McVay, 67 Ga. 502; Heath v. Bates, 70 Ga. 633; Civil Code (1910), § 5522; Georgia Mills &c. Co. v. Clarke, 112 Ga. 253 (2); Clark v. Havard, 122 Ga. 274.

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