Du Bignon v. Wright
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | SIMMONS, C.J. |
| Citation | 50 S.E. 65,122 Ga. 263 |
| Parties | DU BIGNON v. WRIGHT. |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1905 |
DU BIGNON
v.
WRIGHT.
Supreme Court of Georgia
March 4, 1905
Syllabus by the Court.
"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." Dorough v. Johnson, 34 S.E. 168, 108 Ga. 812, and cases there cited.
The ruling above laid down is applicable to the case now under consideration, and the judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.
Error from Superior Court, Glynn County; T. A. Parker, Judge.
Action by J. B. Wright against J. E. Du Bignon. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
W. E. Kay, for plaintiff in error.
Krauss & Shepard, for defendant in error.
SIMMONS, C.J.
Judgment affirmed. All the justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Highway Dept. v. Smith, s. 41051
...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 instance undertakes to admit a prima facie case in favor of the other......
-
Barfield v. Smith, 20666.
...admissions made in open court are not sufficient for this purpose. Dorough v. Johnson, 108 Ga. 812(1), 34 S.E. 168; Du Bignon v. Wright, 122 Ga. 263, 50 S.E. 65. 2. In the instant suit on two promissory notes alleged to have been held by the plaintiff under several transfers from the payees......
-
Dubignon v. Wright
...122 Ga. 26350 S.E. 65DUBIGNON.v.WRIGHT.Supreme Court of Georgia.March 4, 1905. TRIAL—RIGHT TO OPEN AND CLOSE—ADMISSIONS. "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 relie......