Tuxworth v. Barber
This text of 94 S.E. 1042 (Tuxworth v. Barber) 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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
94 S.E. 1042, 21 Ga. App. 748, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuxworth-v-barber-gactapp-1918.