Barlow v. Stalworth

27 Ga. 517
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 15, 1859·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin J.

delivering the opinion.

Was the plaintiff entitled to maintain this action in its present form ?

The authorities clearly establish, that unless the property of the plaintiff has been converted into money, or that which is equivalent to money, that assumpsit for money had and received, will not lie. And that even the consumption of the property by the defendant, does not authorize the action.

Under the Judiciary Act of 1799, it is questionable whether an action in the common Courts, could be sustained, because the case is not plainly, fully and distinctly stated They are more general than Jones’s Forms; for they require a copy of the instrument, which is the foundation of the suit, or of the account to be appended to the complaint.

We agree, consequently, with the Circuit Judge, that trover was the proper remedy in this case, if indeed any cause of action existed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Barlow v. Stalworth, 27 Ga. 517 (Ga. 1859).

27 Ga. 517 (Barlow v. Stalworth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

J. C. Penney Co. v. West
230 S.E.2d 66 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Knight v. Forbes
103 S.E. 725 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Marietta Mining Co. v. Armstrong
102 S.E. 451 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Henderson v. Hardeman & Phinizy
94 S.E. 317 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Southern Railway Co. v. Roberson
71 S.E. 129 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1911)
Woodruff v. Zaban & Son
65 S.E. 123 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)
Cragg v. Arendale
38 S.E. 399 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)