Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Thurmond

85 S.E. 1020, 144 Ga. 21, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 21
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 11, 1915·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. If the counter-claim set up against the plaintiff by the defendant in his plea be treated as one arising ex contractu, it was the subject-matter of set-off. If it be treated as one arising ex delicto, it was alleged that the plaintiff was a non-resident corporation, and that he should be allowed to plead an equitable set-off. In either event, there was no error in refusing to strike the plea on the ground that it sought to set off damages for a tort against a suit on a contract. See, in this connection, Bibb Land-Lumber Co. v. Lima Machine Works, 104 Ga. 116 (30 S. E. 676, 31 S. E. 401); Hecht v. Snook, 114 Ga. 921, 924-5 (41 S. E. 74); Arnold v. Carter, 125 Ga. 319-325 (54 S. E. 177).

2. There -was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Thurmond, 85 S.E. 1020, 144 Ga. 21, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 21 (Ga. 1915).

85 S.E. 1020 (Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Thurmond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jacksonville Paper Co. v. Owen
17 S.E.2d 76 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Quitman Cooperage Co. v. Peoples First National Bank
172 S.E. 17 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Southern Lumber Co. v. Ramsey-Wheeler Co.
144 S.E. 349 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Crandall v. Shepard
143 S.E. 587 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)