History
  • No items yet
midpage
Tuxworth v. Barber
94 S.E. 1042
Ga. Ct. App.
1918
Check Treatment
Bloodwokth, 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- partial defense against the plaintiff’s petition; and under the principles announced in the decisions cited above, the court erred in sustaining the demurrer and striking the plea, and the subsequent proceedings were nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Tuxworth v. Barber
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Feb 7, 1918
Citation: 94 S.E. 1042
Docket Number: 8712
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.