Legal Opinion

Hillhouse v. C. W. Matthews Contracting Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 13, 1965No. 41343PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

“It is a well settled rule that pleadings must be construed in the light of their omissions as well as their averments. Houston v. Pollard, 217 Ga. 184 (121 SE2d 629); Strother v. Kennedy, 218 Ga. 180, 186 (127 SE2d 19).” Reserve Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 107 Ga. App. 311, 313 (130 SE2d 236). And if an inference unfavorable to the right of the party claiming a right under such pleadings may be fairly drawn from the facts stated therein, such inference will prevail in determining the rights of the parties. See Chalverus v. Wilson Mfg. Co., 212 Ga. 612 (1) (94 SE2d 736),…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Chalverus v. Wilson Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1956
  2. Reserve Insurance Co. v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
  3. Houston v. PollardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1961
  4. Strother v. KennedySupreme Court of Georgia · 1962

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Willis v. HillCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
  2. Yandle v. AlexanderCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
  3. Chester v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
  4. Sandefur v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
  5. Hillhouse v. C. W. Matthews Contracting Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1965

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API