Armstrong v. Harper

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Armstrong v. Harper

102 S.E. 463, 25 Ga. App. 71, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 600

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 11, 1920

Docket10984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 102 S.E. 463 (Armstrong v. Harper) 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

Armstrong v. Harper, 102 S.E. 463, 25 Ga. App. 71, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 600 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

1. A dormant judgment is a chose in action. Where an administrator .in his representative capacity obtained a judgment against several defendants, the right to revive the judgment after it became dormant was in the administrator, and not in the heirs at law. See Hill v. Maffett, 3 Ga. App. 89 (59 S. E. 325) ; Moughon v. Masterson, 140 Ga. 699, 704 (79 S. E. 561).

2. Under the above ruling the court did not err in rejecting the amendment which sought to change the petition so that the suit should proceed in the name of the plaintiff as administratrix of the estate of J. W. Olliff, deceased, for the use of herself as one of the “ sole heirs at law,” and as guardian of her ward, who was the other of the " sole heirs ” of the estate.

3. The case was properly dismissed on general demurrer; and this is true although only one of the defendants filed a demurrer. Funderburk v. Smith, 74 Ga. 515.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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