Anderson Banking Co. v. Chandler

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Anderson Banking Co. v. Chandler

107 S.E. 494, 27 Ga. App. 102, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 716

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 6, 1921

Docket10920

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 107 S.E. 494 (Anderson Banking Co. v. Chandler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson Banking Co. v. Chandler, 107 S.E. 494, 27 Ga. App. 102, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 716 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The pleas filed by all of the defendants set up a defense of non est factum under the ruling of the Supreme Court in answer to a certified question in this case (151 Ga. 408, 107 S. E. 60), and the trial judge did not err in his charge respecting sueh defense.

2. “ Where the case has never been marked ‘ in default ’ on the doeket, nor any order taken declaring the ease to be ‘in default/ it is error to dismiss an answer to the merits of the cause, filed at a term subsequent to the appearance term, because not filed in time.” Hall v. Tiedeman, 141 Ga. 602 (87 S. E. 868). An entry on the appearance doeket that a plea-was filed, as to one of'the defendants by name, there being no entry as to any of the other defendants, could not be construed as an entry of default as to any of the other defendants, and the pleas of the latter were properly allowed at the trial term.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict for the defendants, and, since no error of law appears, the court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stephens, J.

1. The pleas filed by all of the defendants set up a defense of non est factum under the ruling of the Supreme Court in answer to a certified question in this case (151 Ga. 408, 107 S. E. 60), and the trial judge did not err in his charge respecting sueh defense.

2. “ Where the case has never been marked ‘ in default ’ on the doeket, nor any order taken declaring the ease to be ‘in default/ it is error to dismiss an answer to the merits of the cause, filed at a term subsequent to the appearance term, because not filed in time.” Hall v. Tiedeman, 141 Ga. 602 (87 S. E. 868). An entry on the appearance doeket that a plea-was filed, as to one of'the defendants by name, there being no entry as to any of the other defendants, could not be construed as an entry of default as to any of the other defendants, and the pleas of the latter were properly allowed at the trial term.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict for the defendants, and, since no error of law appears, the court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 494, 27 Ga. App. 102, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-banking-co-v-chandler-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack