Dubignon v. Wright
| Decision Date | 04 March 1905 |
| Parties | DUBIGNON. v. WRIGHT. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
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 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.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, §§ 50-52.]
The ruling above laid down is applicable to the case now under consideration, and the judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
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
-
Smith v. Smith
... ... Massengale v. Pounds, ... 100 Ga. 770, 28 S.E. 510; Dorough v. Johnson, 108 ... Ga. 812, 34 S.E. 168; Du Bignon v. Wright, 122 Ga ... 263, 50 S.E. 65 ... Partition ... of land by agreement is such a contract as must be in ... writing, under the ... ...
-
E. Van Winnle Gin & Mach. Works v. Pittman
...for the purpose of gaining the advantage of opening and concluding must be in his pleadings, and not merely oral. Du Bignon v. Wright, 122 Ga. 263, 50 S. E. 65; Dorough v. Johnson, 108 Ga. 812, 34 S. E. 168. The foregoing being well settled as rules of law, does the admission contained in t......
-
E. Van Winkle Gin & Machine Works v. Pittman
...for the purpose of gaining the advantage of opening and concluding must be in his pleadings, and not merely oral. Du Bignon v. Wright, 122 Ga. 263, 50 S.E. 65; Dorough v. Johnson, 108 Ga. 812, 34 S.E. 168. The foregoing being well settled as rules of law, does the admission contained in the......
-
International Indem. Co. v. Coachman
...it would appear that appellant was not entitled to claim the right to opening and closing argument. See generally DuBignon v. Wright, 122 Ga. 263, 50 S.E. 65 (1904). However, even assuming that appellant may otherwise have been entitled to claim the right to opening and closing argument, th......