Legal Opinion

Mize v. Mize

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 9, 1949No. 32741PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The demurrer to the original cross-action as amended of the defendant in the divorce action, he being the plaintiff in this action, was as follows:

“Plaintiff demurs to paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of said plea, answer and cross-actioá for the grounds that said paragraphs do not set forth or state a cause of action whereby defendant would be entitled to recover any amount whatsoever from plaintiff.”

The judgment of the court based thereon was as follows: “The within and foregoing demurrer coming on regularly for hearing, and after defendant…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wolfe v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
  2. Hill v. Armour Fertilizer WorksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
  3. Hoffman v. SummerfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
  4. Morgan v. MorganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. General Shoe Corp. v. HoodCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API