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
- Wolfe v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
- Hill v. Armour Fertilizer WorksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
- Hoffman v. SummerfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
- Morgan v. MorganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
3Cited by1 opinion
- General Shoe Corp. v. HoodCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970