Atlanta Journal v. Power

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Atlanta Journal v. Power

108 S.E. 121, 27 Ga. App. 280, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 827

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 12, 1921

Docket11901

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 S.E. 121 (Atlanta Journal v. Power) 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

Atlanta Journal v. Power, 108 S.E. 121, 27 Ga. App. 280, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 827 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

“Parol evidence (especially of the debtor himself) that a settlement closed up by absolute notes and mortgages was, by oral agreement of the parties, to be revised by the debtor, and the notes and mortgages reduced by crediting down all errors, contradicts the writings, and is inadmissible.” Dyar v. Walton, 79 Ga. 466 (7 S. E. 220). Under this ruling and the facts in the instant case, the court erred in refusing to strike, on motion of the plaintiff, the defendant’s plea. This ruling is not in conflict with the decision in McLendon v. Callaway, 52 Ga. 41, relied on by the defendant in error; for in that ease there was no motion to strike the defendant’s plea, and evidence in support of the. plea was admitted without objection, and the Supreme Court said: “All that we do decide is, that the court erred in its charge in saying to the jury that: ‘If you believe from the evidence that the defendant, with such knowledge as I have charged you, signed and delivered the notes, then he waived any defense he might have had, if any, to the accounts exhibited by the plaintiffs to defendant.’ This charge of the court excluded from the consideration of the jury the defendant’s evidence as to what he says was the intention and understanding of the parties at the time the drafts were executed. This evidence being before the jury, the defendant had the right to have had it considered by them for what it was worth in contradiction of the plaintiff’s evidence as to that question in the case.” If in the instant case there had been no motion to strike the defendant’s plea, and if evidence sustaining the plea had been introduced' without objection, and if the court in its charge had excluded that evidence from the consideration of the jury, the two cases would have been on all-fours, and the decision in the McLendon [282]*282case would be controlling in this case. The facts of the two cases clearly distinguish the one from the other.

The error in the ruling on the defendant’s plea rendered the further proceedings in the case nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

“Parol evidence (especially of the debtor himself) that a settlement closed up by absolute notes and mortgages was, by oral agreement of the parties, to be revised by the debtor, and the notes and mortgages reduced by crediting down all errors, contradicts the writings, and is inadmissible.” Dyar v. Walton, 79 Ga. 466 (7 S. E. 220). Under this ruling and the facts in the instant case, the court erred in refusing to strike, on motion of the plaintiff, the defendant’s plea. This ruling is not in conflict with the decision in McLendon v. Callaway, 52 Ga. 41, relied on by the defendant in error; for in that ease there was no motion to strike the defendant’s plea, and evidence in support of the. plea was admitted without objection, and the Supreme Court said: “All that we do decide is, that the court erred in its charge in saying to the jury that: ‘If you believe from the evidence that the defendant, with such knowledge as I have charged you, signed and delivered the notes, then he waived any defense he might have had, if any, to the accounts exhibited by the plaintiffs to defendant.’ This charge of the court excluded from the consideration of the jury the defendant’s evidence as to what he says was the intention and understanding of the parties at the time the drafts were executed. This evidence being before the jury, the defendant had the right to have had it considered by them for what it was worth in contradiction of the plaintiff’s evidence as to that question in the case.” If in the instant case there had been no motion to strike the defendant’s plea, and if evidence sustaining the plea had been introduced' without objection, and if the court in its charge had excluded that evidence from the consideration of the jury, the two cases would have been on all-fours, and the decision in the McLendon [282]*282case would be controlling in this case. The facts of the two cases clearly distinguish the one from the other.

The error in the ruling on the defendant’s plea rendered the further proceedings in the case nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 121, 27 Ga. App. 280, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlanta-journal-v-power-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack