Dorough v. Johnson
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 34 S.E. 168,108 Ga. 812 |
| Decision Date | 01 August 1899 |
| Parties | DOROUGH. v. JOHNSON. |
34 S.E. 168
108 Ga. 812
DOROUGH.
v.
JOHNSON.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Aug. 1, 1899.
TRIAL—RIGHT TO OPEN AND CLOSE—APPEAL —REVIEW.
1. The defendant below was not entitled to open and conclude, because he did not, by admissions in his answer, make out a prima facie case for the plaintiff, and thus relieve him from the necessity of introducing evidence. Admissions made by a defendant for the purpose of gaining this advantage must be in his pleadings, and not merely oral. Montgomery v. Hunt, 21 S. E. 59, 93 Ga. 438; Levens v. Smith, 31 S. E. 104. 102 Ga. 480; Association v. Perry, 30 S. E. 658, 103 Ga. 800. In the case last cited, the admission referred to was embraced in the an swer of the defendants, though this fact does not appear in the official report.
2. At the October term, 1896, it was in this case decided that the defendant's answer, as it then stood, was meritorious, and ought not to have been stricken. See 27 S. E. 187, 99 Ga. 644. Upon the trial now under review, for some reason not disclosed, all of his pleas, except one setting up failure of consideration, were withdrawn; and as much evidence totally irrelevant to the only issue thus left in controversy was improperly allowed to go to the jury, and as the court gave in charge to them numerous inappropriate instructions, there should be another hearing.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Harris county; W. B. Butt, Judge.
Action between J. T. Dorough and Henry Johnson. From the judgment, J. T. Dorough brings error. Reversed.
C. J. Thornton and A. E. Thornton, for plaintiff in error.
B. H. Walton and Brannon, Hatcher & Martin, for defendant in error.
PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Highway Dept. v. Smith, Nos. 41051
...opening and conclusion unless he, by admissions contained in his answer, admits a prima facie case for the plaintiff. Dorough v. Johnson, 108 Ga. 812 (1), 34 S.E. 168; Du Bignon v. Wright, 122 Ga. 263, 50 S.E. 65. Where the party upon whom the burden of proof does not rest in the first inst......
-
Mobley v. Childers, (No. 19048.)
...admit enough to mate out a prima facie case for the latter. Massengale v. Pounds, 100 Ga. 770 [28 S. E. 510]; Dorough v. Johnson, 108 Ga. 812 [34 S. E. 1681; Central Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 110 Ga. 168 [35 S. E. 345]; Whitaker v. Arnold, 110 Ga. 857 [36 S. B. 231]." Reid v. Sewell, 111 Ga. ......
-
Bank Of Richland v. Nicholson
...been made that the admission did not appear in the defendant's pleading, a different question would have arisen. See Dorough v. Johnson, 108 Ga. 812, 34 S. E. 168 (1); Central Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 110 Ga. 168, 35 S. E. 345; Reid v. Sewell, 111 Ga. 880, 36 S. E. 937. Some portions of the charg......
-
Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co v. Morgan
...Ga. 732, 28 S. E. 453; Massengale v. Pounds, 100 Ga. 770, 28 S. E. 510; Cook v. Coffey, 103 Ga. 384, 30 S. E. 27; Dorough v. Johnson (Ga.) 34 S. E. 168. It la conceded by counsel for plaintiff in error that these decisions cover this case, but it is claimed that they are in conflict with pr......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Smith, Nos. 41051
...opening and conclusion unless he, by admissions contained in his answer, admits a prima facie case for the plaintiff. Dorough v. Johnson, 108 Ga. 812 (1), 34 S.E. 168; Du Bignon v. Wright, 122 Ga. 263, 50 S.E. 65. Where the party upon whom the burden of proof does not rest in the first inst......
-
Mobley v. Childers, (No. 19048.)
...admit enough to mate out a prima facie case for the latter. Massengale v. Pounds, 100 Ga. 770 [28 S. E. 510]; Dorough v. Johnson, 108 Ga. 812 [34 S. E. 1681; Central Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 110 Ga. 168 [35 S. E. 345]; Whitaker v. Arnold, 110 Ga. 857 [36 S. B. 231]." Reid v. Sewell, 111 Ga. 880 (......
-
Bank Of Richland v. Nicholson
...been made that the admission did not appear in the defendant's pleading, a different question would have arisen. See Dorough v. Johnson, 108 Ga. 812, 34 S. E. 168 (1); Central Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 110 Ga. 168, 35 S. E. 345; Reid v. Sewell, 111 Ga. 880, 36 S. E. 937. Some portions of the charg......
-
Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co v. Morgan
...Ga. 732, 28 S. E. 453; Massengale v. Pounds, 100 Ga. 770, 28 S. E. 510; Cook v. Coffey, 103 Ga. 384, 30 S. E. 27; Dorough v. Johnson (Ga.) 34 S. E. 168. It la conceded by counsel for plaintiff in error that these decisions cover this case, but it is claimed that they are in conflict with pr......