Carr v. Dickson

58 Ga. 144
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 58 Ga. 144 (Carr v. Dickson) 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
Carr v. Dickson, 58 Ga. 144 (Ga. 1877).

Opinion

Warner, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff sued the defendant on a promissory note for the sum of $133.00, payable to F. W. Sims & Company or bearer, dated 2d September, 1872, and due one day after date. On the trial of the case, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount of the note, with interest thereon. The defendant made a motion for a new trial on the several grounds contained therein, which was overruled by the court, and the defendant excepted.

1. There was no error in overruling the defendant’s motion for a continuance of the case on the showing made therefor on account of the absence of the witness Owens, .inasmuch as the defendant did not state that the witness was not absent by his permission, directly or indirectly, or that he expected to be able to procure the testimony of the witness at the next term of the court, or that the application for continuance was not made for the purpose of delay, etc., as required by the 3522d section of the Code.

2. There was no error in rejecting the evidence offered by the defendant, even if the agent with whom it was insisted the contract was made, had not been dead. All that the defendant proposed to prove was, in general terms, that the note was given by mistake, that the consideration for the same was settled and paid off before the note was given, and that it was given for the amount of a note on John A. Owens. The defendant’s plea did not allege how the mistake occurred in giving the note, nor did the evidence offered show it; neither did the evidence offered show to whom the consideration of the note was settled and paid off before it was given, certainly not to the plaintiff or his intestate, or that either of them had any knowledge thereof, or that it was given for the amount of a note on John A. Owens.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.

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

Related

Keller v. State
195 S.E.2d 767 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Carroll v. Crawford
129 S.E.2d 865 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963)
Williamson v. Marchman
134 S.E. 625 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 Ga. 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-dickson-ga-1877.