Stromberg-Carlson Telephone Manufacturing Co. v. Bisbee

41 S.E. 573, 115 Ga. 346, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 407
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided April 26, 1902·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. Under the ruling in Hollis v. Nelms, ante, 5, and cases cited, the judgment overruling the demurrers to the defendant’s answer was prematurely brought to this court, and can not be considered. That judgment did not dispose of the case, nor would it have been disposed of if the ruling had been as demanded. See also Zorn v. Lamar, 71 Ga. 80.

2. The motion to enter judgment for the plaintiff was properly refused, for the answer of the defendant had not been stricken. “ The sufficiency of an answer can not properly be brought in question by a motion to enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, based on the ground that the answer sets forth no defense.” Hollis v. Nelms, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lewis, J., absent.

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

Stromberg-Carlson Telephone Manufacturing Co. v. Bisbee, 41 S.E. 573, 115 Ga. 346, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 407 (Ga. 1902).

41 S.E. 573 (Stromberg-Carlson Telephone Manufacturing Co. v. Bisbee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bush v. Kent
180 S.E. 858 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Georgia Fruit Growers Inc. v. Vaughn
153 S.E. 381 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Tarver v. Mayor of Dalton
67 S.E. 929 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
Southern Railway Co. v. Atlanta Stove Works
57 S.E. 429 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)