Legal Opinion
Tuxworth v. Barber
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided February 7, 1918No. 8712PublishedCited by 10 opinions
Complaint; from DeKalb superior court — Judge Smith. March 5, 1917.
1Opinion of the CourtBloodwokth, J.
1. ‘‘The answer of a defendant will resist a general demurrer or motion to strike, no matter how defective in some respects the answer may be, if it contains any matter of substantial right which the defendant can properly present by plea.” Medlock v. Wood, 4 Ga. App. 368 (2) (61 S. E. 516); Hicks v. Hamilton, 3 Ga. App. 112 (2) (59 S. E. 331); Epstein Co. v. Thomas, 15 Ga. App. 741 (3) (84 S. E. 201); Baer v. Christian, 83 Ga. 322 (2) (9 S. E. 790); Higginbotham v. Conway, 113 Ga. 1155 (39 S. E. 550).
2. The amended plea contained some averments constituting, in substance, at least a good-…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hicks v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Medlock v. WoodCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Epstein & Brother Co. v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
- Baer v. ChristianSupreme Court of Georgia · 1889
- Higginbotham v. ConwaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
3Cited by10 opinions
- James v. Dayton Rubber Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Bailey v. BellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
- Smith v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
- Dawson Production Credit Association v. ConnellyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
- Smith v. MonroeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.