Legal Opinion
Tietjen v. Meldrim
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided January 14, 1930No. 7281PublishedCited by 94 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHines, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
The plaintiffs filed a general demurrer to the answer of the defendants as a whole. A portion of the answer was proper and good in substance. In these circumstances the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the whole answer. Blaylock v. Hackel, 164 Ga. 257 (138 S. E. 333); Beasley v. Anderson, 167 Ga. 470 (146 S. E. 22).
But we are of the opinion that some of the special grounds of demurrer were well taken. In paragraph 2 of their answer the defendants admit that the deeds to the lots owned by Mrs. Meldrim bound and describe the same by…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Blaylock v. HackelSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- Gaston v. Gainesville & Dahlonega Electric Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Ford v. HarrisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
- Murphey v. HarkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Morris v. WarlickSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by94 opinions
- Peoples Loan Company v. AllenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Citizens & Southern National Bank v. KontzSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Peoples Loan Co. v. AllenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Walker v. DuncanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1976
- Westbrook v. ComerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.