Mitchell v. Allen

34 S.E. 851, 110 Ga. 282, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 559
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 2, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 34 S.E. 851 (Mitchell v. Allen) 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
Mitchell v. Allen, 34 S.E. 851, 110 Ga. 282, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 559 (Ga. 1899).

Opinion

T Lewis, j.

1. There was no abuse of discretion in denying, at the trial term of an action, a motion by the defendant to open a default, the-recitals of fact set forth in the motion not disclosing any satisfactory reason for failing to answer at the proper time.

2. When, by reason of the defendant’s failure to file an answer, the averments of the plaintiffs’ petition are properly taken as true, and the court thereupon directs a verdict in the latter’s favor, the judgment will not be reversed, when the only exception to this action by the court is that the plaintiffs should have been required to prove' specified facts which are themselves sufficiently alleged in the petition. See Boaz v. Jackson, 105 Ga. 228.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Hayes v. International Harvester Co.
183 S.E. 197 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Pape v. Woolford Realty Co.
134 S.E. 174 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Jackson v. Grant
111 S.E. 192 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Glennville Investment Co. v. Jordan & Rogers
85 S.E. 1049 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)
Tower v. Ellsworth
37 S.E. 736 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 S.E. 851, 110 Ga. 282, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-allen-ga-1899.