Legal Opinion
Swofford v. Glaze
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided January 9, 1951No. 17305PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWyatt, J.
“Ordinarily the plaintiff, in his petition, need not anticipate or negative a possible defense. Where, however, such defense is anticipated, it must be effectually avoided, or the complaint is bad.” James v. Maddox, 153 Ga. 208 (3) (111 S. E. 731). See also Smith v. Scarborough, 182 Ga. 157 (185 S. E. 105), and Swofford v. Glaze, 206 Ga. 574 (57 S. E. 2d, 823). “A court of equity will not afford relief to a party who, with all the means of protecting himself against the imposition of the other party, abandons them and relies on his statements.” Castleberry v. Scandrett, 20 Ga. 242.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Jones v. HogansSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- Maddox v. Simmons & GriffinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1860
- Bass v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- Castleberry v. ScandrettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1856
- James v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Clinton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- Brown v. MacK Trucks, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Lewis v. AldermanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Wheat v. MontgomeryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Dixon v. DixonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1955
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.