Legal Opinion
Byrom v. Ringe
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided February 1, 1951No. 33396PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts): Code § 81-103 states in part as follows: “Any averment distinctly and plainly made [in a petition] which is not denied by the defendant’s answer shall be taken as prima facie true, unless the defendant shall state in his answer that he can neither admit nor deny such averment because of the want of sufficient information.” Code § 81-308 states as follows: “Where facts are charged to be within the knowledge of a party, or where- from all the circumstances such knowledge is necessarily presumed, and he fails to answer altogether, or makes an evasive answer,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Mobley v. Murray CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
- Fontaine v. Baxley, Boles & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1892
- Swindell & Co. v. Bainbridge State BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Morrow v. HansonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
- Atlanta Glass Co. v. NoizetSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Central Container Corp. v. WestbrookCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- Household Finance Corp. v. PughSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Automated Print, Inc. v. EdgarCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2007
- Consolidated Pecan Sales Company v. Savannah Bank & Trust CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
- Johnson v. RaatzCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1991
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.