Baker v. Tillman

11 S.E. 355, 84 Ga. 401
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 24, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 11 S.E. 355 (Baker v. Tillman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baker v. Tillman, 11 S.E. 355, 84 Ga. 401 (Ga. 1890).

Opinion

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

From the plaintiff’s evidence, together with the admission made by his counsel, it appeared that the mortgage referred to in the conditional contract sued upon was outstanding when the action was brought, and was [402]*402not paid oft or taken up and cancelled until the day on which the case was tried. The condition on which the maturity of the contract depended was not, as in the case of Griswold v. Scott, 13 Ga. 210, suspended upon an act to be done by the debtor, but upon one to be done by the creditor. This rendered the act a condition precedent, and the declaration so treats it; for it alleges that the mortgage “ has been taken up and paid, and is no longer a lien on said land.” 'Whether an action could have been brought for a part of the debt evidenced by the contract, without alleging performance of the condition, need not be considered. No such action was brought. Performance of the condition was alleged, and the proof was that it was not performed. When the suit was brought, the defendant was not in default. He had not violated his promise to pay, because he had not promised to pay at the time stipulated except upon condition that the mortgage lien should be removed by that time. Why should a debtor who is in no default be subjected to suit? Why should he be required to incur the expense of defending an action brought before the cause of action declared upon had arisen ? That a cause of action accrues pending the suit will not entitle the plaintiff to recover. Wadley v. Jones, 55 Ga. 329. Here the plaintiff not only failed to sustain a material part of his declaration by proof, but showed affirmatively that his declaration was untrue. The plea of the general issue was all that was essential to resist the case made. Indeed, had no plea at all been filed, the motion for a nonsuit should have been granted. The court erred in not grantingit, and we direct that a judgment of nonsuit be entered. Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Goodman v. Independent Life & Accident Insurance
397 S.E.2d 56 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1990)
Wolverine Insurance v. Sorrough
177 S.E.2d 819 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Brandwein v. Greenfield
122 S.E.2d 316 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Sellers v. City of Summerville
67 S.E.2d 137 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
Nutting v. Wilson
42 S.E.2d 575 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Bedenbaugh v. Burgin
28 S.E.2d 652 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Hulme
197 S.E. 85 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Martin v. McLain
180 S.E. 510 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Cox v. Bailey
180 S.E. 494 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Roberts v. Hardin
175 S.E. 362 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Daniel v. Dalton News Co.
173 S.E. 727 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Macy v. Hays
136 S.E. 517 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)
Loewenherz v. Weil
127 S.E. 883 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Smith v. Roddenbery Hardware Co.
100 S.E. 718 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Baker v. Smith
70 S.E. 239 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1911)
Becker v. Donalson
67 S.E. 92 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
Lamar, Taylor & Riley Drug Co. v. First National Bank
56 S.E. 486 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Deas v. Sammons
55 S.E. 170 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 S.E. 355, 84 Ga. 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-tillman-ga-1890.