Tuxworth v. Barber

94 S.E. 1042, 21 Ga. App. 748, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 512
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 7, 1918·No. 8712·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Bloodwokth, J.

1. ‘‘The answer of a defendant will resist a general demurrer or motion to strike, no matter how defective in some respects the answer may be, if it contains any matter of substantial right which the defendant can properly present by plea.” Medlock v. Wood, 4 Ga. App. 368 (2) (61 S. E. 516); Hicks v. Hamilton, 3 Ga. App. 112 (2) (59 S. E. 331); Epstein Co. v. Thomas, 15 Ga. App. 741 (3) (84 S. E. 201); Baer v. Christian, 83 Ga. 322 (2) (9 S. E. 790); Higginbotham v. Conway, 113 Ga. 1155 (39 S. E. 550).

2. The amended plea contained some averments constituting, in substance, at least a good- partial defense against the plaintiff’s petition; and under the principles announced in the decisions cited above, the court erred in sustaining the demurrer and striking the plea, and the subsequent proceedings were nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.

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

Tuxworth v. Barber, 94 S.E. 1042, 21 Ga. App. 748, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 512 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

94 S.E. 1042 (Tuxworth v. Barber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Metro Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Pearce
175 S.E.2d 910 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Keiser v. American Express Co.
145 S.E.2d 698 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Howard v. Jones Motor Co.
121 S.E.2d 915 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Bailey v. Bell
69 S.E.2d 272 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1952)
Smith v. Monroe
60 S.E.2d 790 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Smith v. Davis
45 S.E.2d 237 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Dawson Production Credit Association v. Connelly
8 S.E.2d 424 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
James v. Dayton Rubber Manufacturing Co.
196 S.E. 298 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Tennessee Chemical Co. v. Ricks
119 S.E. 443 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)