Conley v. Key

25 S.E. 914, 98 Ga. 115
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 20, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 25 S.E. 914 (Conley v. Key) 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
Conley v. Key, 25 S.E. 914, 98 Ga. 115 (Ga. 1896).

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

The official report states the facts.

The petition upon which the attachment nisi as for a contempt was issued, was sworn to by the plaintiff in error as the agent of the wife. To meet the charge of contempt, it was necessary for the defendant in that proceeding to answer on oath, and it was perfectly competent to support his answer, either by the testimony of witnesses verifying its truth, or by proving to the satisfaction of the court that the person filing the information was so utterly unworthy of credit, as that an information supported only by his affidavit was to all intents and purposes not sworn to at all. For the purpose of that inquiry, the plaintiff in error was a witness to the extent that his affidavit was the basis of the accusation, and testified against the defendant; and this rendered legitimate the production of impeaching affidavits. Affidavits made in a judicial proceeding pertinent to the issue are held to be privileged, notwithstanding they may have been made maliciously. See Francis et al. v. Wood et [118]*118al., 75 Ga. 648. If a witness who makes an affidavit which is pertinent and legal is excused upon the ground of privilege, certainly the attorney who presents it for the consideration of the court cannot be held to have abused his privilege. To rule such a doctrine, would be to practically deprive a party of the benefit of counsel in every case in which it became necessary or proper to impeach a witness of his adversary. We therefore conclude that the court committed no error, and that the judgment sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration be Affirmed.

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

Related

MICHELE MCCAULEY v. PAMELA POWELL
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2024
Skoglund v. Durham
502 S.E.2d 814 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Davis v. Shavers
495 S.E.2d 23 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1998)
Todd v. Cox
512 P.2d 1234 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1973)
Jordan v. Burger King Corp.
185 S.E.2d 577 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
Bleecker v. Drury
3 F.R.D. 325 (W.D. New York, 1944)
Andrews v. . Gardiner
121 N.E. 341 (New York Court of Appeals, 1918)
Bibb v. Crawford
64 S.E. 488 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)
Buschbaum v. Heriot
63 S.E. 645 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 S.E. 914, 98 Ga. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conley-v-key-ga-1896.