Wardlaw v. Frederick

Citation79 S.E. 523,13 Ga. App. 594
Decision Date07 October 1913
Docket Number(No. 5,027.)
PartiesWARDLAW. v. FREDERICK.
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Pleading (§ 204*)— Demuebeb—Pleading Good in Pabt—Answer.

Where an answer is demurred to on the general ground that the allegations thereof are irrelevant and insufficient, and do not set up any matter of defense, and the demurrer fails specifically to point out in what particular they are irrelevant and insufficient, and it appears that some of the paragraphs demurred to do set up matters which are relevant and material, in testing the relevancy and sufficiency of matters of defense thus set up, the facts alleged in all the paragraphs will be considered together; and, if, in light of the allegations embraced in all the paragraphs, there is a sufficient defense, there would be no error in a judgment overruling the demurrer. Antognoli v. Miller, 116 Ga. 621, 42 S. E. 1006.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 486-490; Dec. Dig. § 204. *J

2. Pleading (§ 208*)—Demurreb—Pleading Good in Pabt—Answeb.

Where a paragraph in an answer contains both relevant and irrelevant matter, it will be purged of the irrelevant matter on special demurrer pointing out such irrelevancy; but if the demurrer goes to the paragraph as a whole, without specifying the irrelevant matter, the demurrant cannot complain that the entire paragraph of the answer is not stricken. Southern Ry. Co. v. Phillips, 136 Ga. 282, 71 S. E. 414.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 513-519; Dec. Dig. & 208.*]

3. Executors and Administrators (§ 221*) — Allowance of Claims — Disputed Claims—Admissibility or Evidence.

It was erroneous to admit in evidence the deed from the defendant's testator to the plaintiff. The plaintiff offered evidence in support of her contention that at the date of the death of her brother, the testator, he was indebted to her in the amount sued for. The defendant pleaded that this indebtedness, if it ever existed, had been settled by a conveyance of real estate from the decedent to the plaintiff The deed introduced in evidence recited that it was based upon a consideration of love and affection and $10. There was no evidence to authorize a finding that this deed was intended by the grantor and accepted by the grantee as a settlement and satisfaction of the debt for which the plaintiff sued. In the absence of some evidence of this character, the deed was wholly irrelevant to any issue on trial in the case. For the same reason, it was erroneous to admit the prior conveyances showing title in the decedent to the same property.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. 901-903V2, 1858, 1861-1803, 1865, 1866, 1871-1874, 1876; Dec. Dig. §, 221.*]

4. Executors and Administrators (§ 221*)— Allowance of Claims—Disputed Claims —Admissibility of Evidence.

It was erroneous to admit in evidence a written agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in reference to certain other matters pending between them, in which it was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT