Daniel v. Browder-Manget Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Complaint; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Keid. May 18, 1912.
1Opinion of the CourtPottle, J.
The fundamental error into which counsel for the plaintiff and the trial court fell was in ignoring all the defendant’s *394pleas except the plea of non est factum. General and special demurrers to the answer were filed. Upon these demurrers the court passed an order striking all of the answer except so much thereof as set up the defense of non est factum, “with leave to amend in ten dajs from this date.” Within the time allowed by the order the defendant amended his answer, and the amendment was allowed, “subject to objections.” No objection to the answer as amended was ever filed. The defendant…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Olds Motor Works v. Olds Oakland Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1913
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wade v. DrinkardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
- McKibben v. Fourth National BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- TIMBERLAKE GROCERY COMPANY OF MACON v. CartwrightCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
- Georgian Co. v. KinneyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
- Krys v. HendersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1952
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.