Court Opinion

ID: 9865667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:20:19.271368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:00.304585
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION ROE REHEARING.
Under the record of this case, the principle stated in the Code, § 81-307, and Glisson v. Burkhalter, 31 Ga. App. 365 (120 S. E. 664), and City of Atlanta v. Gore, 47 Ga. App. 70, 74 (169 S. E. 776), do not apply, because the plaintiff declared on the two written contracts which are ambiguous on their faces, when construed together. The answer is sufficiently full, in view of the allegations of the petition, to admit proof of this issue, without the aid of a special plea of satisfaction or avoidance.

Rehearing denied.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.