Legal Opinion
Williams v. Smith
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided October 19, 1944No. 30612PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.
As to the demurrers: (a) It is earnestly argued that the description of the property, as set out in the original instrument which the defendant executed and delivered to the' plaintiff, is too vague and indefinite to be the basis of a cause of action and that it does not measure up to the requirements of the Code, § 20-401 (4). We must construe the allegations of the declaration and the instrument designated as an option together. In doing so, we must consider those allegations of the declaration which are well pleaded as being true. Parol evidence is admissible to clarify and explain…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Teasley v. BradleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Clark v. CagleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914
- Blumberg v. NathanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
- Akers v. Kirke & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1893
- Cooper v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Ostroff v. CoynerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
- Flint Davis v. Sears, Roebuck and Company and Bruce MasonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989
- Plantation Land Co. v. BradshawSupreme Court of Georgia · 1974
- Camp v. EichelkrautCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2000
- Armijo v. National Surety Corp.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1954
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.