Legal Opinion

Swofford v. Glaze

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 15, 1950No. 16891PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Head, Justice.

1. “Ordinarily the plaintiff, in his petition, need not anticipate or negative a possible defense. Where, however, such defense is anticipated, it must be effectually avoided, or the complaint is bad.” James v. Maddox, 153 Ga. 208 (111 S. E. 731); Smith v. Scarborough, 182 Ga. 157 (185 S. E. 105). Where the pleaded facts, if proven, would be insufficient as a matter of law to negative the defense of accord and satisfaction, the petition would be subject to an appropriate demurrer. In the absence of any attack as to the sufficiency of the pleaded facts to negative the defense of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. James v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
  2. Smith v. ScarboroughSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bell v. StuddardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1965
  2. Swofford v. GlazeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1951
  3. Georgia Power Co. v. FountainSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
  4. Branan v. LaGrange Truck Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1956
  5. Thyer Manufacturing Corporation v. DrakeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1961

2 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